Promise of 15% Monthly Profit Is a Recipe for Fraud: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹30 Lakh Share Trading Scam Involving Advocates

"The assurance of 10% to 15% guaranteed monthly profit in intraday share trading is prima facie indicative of fraudulent intention at inception" –  Today, On 17 September 2025, the Bombay High Court rejecting an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court was dealing with a serious financial scam in which the applicants, both practicing lawyers, were accused of cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Amit Borkar, while pronouncing the judgment, observed that "no genuine business activity can yield such assured and astronomical returns", and such a false assurance reflects "dishonest intention at the inception." The judgment brings into sharp focus the criminalization of business dealings dressed up as civil disputes, particularly where deception and inducement are used to defraud individuals of large sums.

Lawyers Turned Traders—From Law Firm to Alleged Fraud

The applicants, Rupali Bapurao Jadhav and Bapurao Bhanudas Jadhav, were allegedly involved in a partnership with the complainant, Sachin Baliram Jadhav, also an advocate. In May 2024, they launched a law firm, M/s. Law Sinergy, through a partnership deed signed in July 2024.

Subsequently, they induced the complainant to invest ₹30,00,000 in cash for intraday share trading, with a promise of earning 10% to 15% profits per month. Initially, ₹4,00,000 was paid as profit, followed by the issuance of a ₹25,00,000 security cheque. Later, the applicants paid ₹10,00,000, which the complainant returned, demanding full repayment. When further payments were not made and threats were allegedly issued, an FIR was registered.

The case was registered as Crime Register No. 90 of 2025 at Kharghar Police Station, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Is It Mere Breach of Contract or Criminal Cheating?

The key legal contention revolved around whether the dispute was of a civil nature—arising out of a business partnership—or whether it involved criminal elements of fraud and cheating.

The applicants, through counsel, claimed that the FIR was "motivated" and was simply an outcome of business disputes between professionals. They asserted there was no proof of ₹30 lakhs being paid, and in fact, claimed to have paid ₹36.32 lakhs to the complainant.

The State and the complainant, on the other hand, emphasized that:

• The promised monthly profit of 10-15% itself proved dishonest inducement.
• There were transcripts of conversations and a draft MoU where the applicants allegedly admitted receipt of the money.
• Similar complaints had been lodged by four other victims, involving amounts up to ₹49 lakhs.
• The accused lacked any legal authority to take money for investment in shares.

A Web of False Promises, Fraud, and Professional Misconduct

The Court observed: "The promise of 10% to 15% profit every month is, on the face of it, highly unrealistic and impractical in the share market… Such inducement prima facie reflects a dishonest intention at the inception."

The Court rejected the defense that the matter was civil in nature: "When a person is induced to part with a substantial sum of money on the assurance of abnormal and assured returns, the nature of the transaction itself stands tainted… Such inducement takes the case outside the scope of a mere civil dispute and brings it within the fold of criminal liability."

On Professional Misconduct:

Another explosive revelation was the applicants’ admission that they paid ₹26.32 lakhs for "liaisoning work" at the office of the Revenue Commissioner and Revenue Minister, which the Court held was in “clear violation of professional ethics”.

“When advocates… enter into transactions involving ‘liaisoning work’ with government authorities or ministers, it directly reflects upon their professional conduct… Such conduct strengthens the prosecution case that the applicants were acting with dishonest intention and misused their professional status to secure confidence of the informant and others for monetary gain.”

The Court even invoked Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, highlighting that this could amount to professional misconduct, warranting disciplinary action.

Custodial Interrogation Needed: Larger Conspiracy Suspected

Importantly, the Court noted the pattern of complaints from multiple victims, suggesting that the applicants may have been running a larger fraudulent scheme:

"The conduct of the applicants shows a pattern of inducement, receipt of money, and failure to repay… The activity was not a single isolated transaction but part of a larger scheme."

Justice Borkar stressed the need for custodial interrogation to determine how the money was used and whether more victims were involved.

Civil Dispute Argument Rejected, Bail Denied

In the final analysis, the Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. It held:

"Considering the magnitude of the amounts involved, the number of victims, and the necessity of ascertaining utilisation of funds, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary… The application for anticipatory bail is rejected."

The Court also denied the applicants' request for continuation of interim relief.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2025