HC refuses bail to Navi Mumbai bizman in multi-crore cyber fraud

According to the prosecution, nine similar cyber fraud cases have been registered across India, all following the same modus operandi as the accused

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to a Navi Mumbai businessman accused of being part of a large-scale cyber fraud racket that duped country-wide investors through fake online share trading schemes.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

Justice Amit Borkar rejected the bail plea of Pramod Ramsingh Fojdar, proprietor of Shri Kanhaiya Ji Trading Company, on October 16, 2025.

The case stems from an FIR registered in May 2024 by the Cyber Cell, Navi Mumbai, after a Vashi-based complainant reported losing over ₹76 lakh in an online trading scam. The complainant was lured into joining WhatsApp groups such as “CINV – The Premier Strategy Group” after being promised lucrative returns through stock investments. Convinced by the use of a fake SEBI registration number, the complainant transferred funds to accounts provided by the group’s handlers. When the complainant attempted to withdraw his purported profits of ₹1.76 crore, he was told to first pay ₹11 lakh as “tax.” Realising it was a scam, he filed a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

The investigation revealed that the defrauded funds were routed through several accounts, including Vicky Traders, Krishna Fashion, and Shree Ji Enterprises, before reaching Shri Kanhaiya Ji Trading Company. The police found that ₹82 lakh had been transferred from January 17 to June 1, 2024, to Fojdar’s firm, followed by immediate cash withdrawals. Following this, he was arrested on October 15, 2024.

According to the prosecution, nine similar cyber fraud cases have been registered across India, all following the same modus operandi. In each instance, the money trail led to Fojdar’s bank account.

The police also verified documents produced by Fojdar, who claimed the amount was from legitimate business transactions involving agricultural produce. However, the address of Shree Ji Enterprises on the bills was found to be fictitious. A real estate agency named R R Realtors was at the location, and its proprietor confirmed that no such trading firm had ever existed there.

The court noted that the applicant had repeatedly ignored police notices and failed to cooperate with the investigation. “The applicant’s conduct in producing false information, instead of cooperating with the investigation, further weakens his version,” Justice Borkar observed.

The court held that the explanation of agricultural trade was unsubstantiated, as the applicant could not produce transport receipts, delivery challans, or other records expected in genuine business transactions.

“The pattern of immediate cash withdrawals, use of multiple shell firms, and identical money trails across several cases demonstrates an organised operation designed to disguise proceeds of fraud,” the order stated.

Rejecting the argument that tax payment legitimised the funds, the judge remarked that “payment of tax cannot legalise proceeds of a fraudulent act.” Citing the gravity of the offence, the scale of financial loss to investors, and the organised nature of the operation, the court concluded that Fojdar’s custodial interrogation had already uncovered crucial evidence, and his release on bail at this stage would risk hindering further investigation.