Jeni Agnel D Souza v. State Of Maharashtra

917-aba-3168-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3168 OF 2025 Jeni Agnel D' Souza ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent.

..............

Mr. Nitin Sejpal for the Applicant.

Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent/State. API Sanjay Patil, EOW, Navi Mumbai is present. ..............

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

25.11.2025.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No. 479 of 2024 registered at Vashi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3.

According to the prosecution, the first informant is engaged in the business of purchasing mobile phones on credit and supplying them to customers. During the course of his business, he became acquainted with one Ramesh Kumar Purohit, owner of New Mac Mobile shop at Vashi. It is alleged that Ramesh Purohit introduced the first informant to the present applicant involved in the business of commodity trading and as such she offered profitable returns on investments. Acting on this representation, the first informant initially invested ₹5,00,000/- with the applicant Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

917-aba-3168-25.doc and received ₹6,00,000/- within a month. It is further alleged that thereafter, the applicant allegedly advised the first informant to purchase expensive mobile phones on credit, sell them through Ramesh Purohit, and invest the proceeds with her. Relying on this advice, the first informant and Ramesh Purohit jointly invested a total sum of ₹3,67,00,000/- with the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant defrauded the said amount.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 5.

It appears that, apart from the present FIR, there are three more FIRs of similar nature registered against the present applicant. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2