While reaffirming material principles/guidelines needed to be kept in mind by the Courts and the Magistrates for consideration of a bail application, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the grant of bail with respect to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception and not the rule.

The High Court rendered such findings while dealing with a bail matter of an accused booked in a corruption case.

The Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking bail in his favour in a case registered under Sections 419,429,467,468,471, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (PC Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani stated, “Grant of bail quo an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception and not the rule.”

Senior Advocate Vikram Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Senior AAG Monika Kohli represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A written complaint was lodged with the respondent alleging that the co-accused Saleem Yousuf Bhati, who was a contractual employee with the IWMP Department at Poonch and some others had activated the inactive accounts of the Water Shed Committee at Branch, Lasana, Surankote Pooch. The accused persons got the nomenclature of the accounts changed and issued fake salary certificates/confirmation letters to different non-existing employees, thereby managing the grant of personal loans, cash credit loans and car loans etc., by impersonating themselves as Government employees. The accused persons also managed to open fraudulent Government accounts. The petitioner was posted at the J&K Bank main branch and worked in the capacity of Manager. During investigation it was found that the petitioner was known to the co-accused Mohd Safeer prior to the sanction of fraudulent loans.

The said persons firstly deposited the money through different banks/branches in the accounts of the Water Shed Committee. They also issued fake authority letters instructing the branches of the complainant-bank to disburse/credit the salaries in their individual accounts. It was alleged that the said persons thereafter succeeded in obtaining the loans from the different branches of the complainant/bank thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank in huge amounts of crores of rupees. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner/accused had taken a bribe (cash and bank transactions), thereby facilitating the fraudulent loans availed by the accused.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the co-accused were reported to have been bailed out, and there appeared to be no imperative need for the petitioner/accused in custody. It was further noticed that the petitioner/accused was reported to be in custody since his arrest on February 17, 2025.

The Bench explained, “It is also well settled that the bar imposed under section 480 of BNSS on the exercise of the discretion in the matters of bail subject to proviso contained in the section, is confined to the offences carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in alternative and the offences carrying a sentence of imprisonment for life disjunctive of death sentence are exempted from the embargo.”

Holding that no single rule or a golden litmus test is applicable for consideration of a bail application, the Bench affirmed some material principles/guidelines for consideration of a bail application. These principles include that judicial discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and circumspection. The Court must duly consider the nature and the circumstances of the case.

Some other considerations are reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, investigation being hampered or the judicial process being impeded or subverted. The Bench further affirmed that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, the nature of the evidence, the punishment and the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses or otherwise polluting the justice, also has a bearing on the matter.

The Bench thus allowed the application and admitted the petitioner/accused to bail, subject to his furnishing surety and personal bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial and the Superintendent of the Jail concerned.

Cause Title: Jatinder Kumar v. UT of J&K (Case No.: Bail app. No. 82/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Sharma, Advocates Monish Chopra, Sahil Sharma

Respondent: Senior AAG Monika Kohli

Click here to read/download Order


Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High CourtJustice Mohammad Yousuf Wani

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.