Bail Is The Rule, Jail The Exception: J&K And Ladakh High Court Grants Bail To J&K Bank Manager In Loan Fraud Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani has granted bail to Jatinder Kumar, a Manager of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, in a case investigated by the Crime Branch, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Jammu, arising from allegations of a loan fraud involving forged documents, impersonation and the securing of bank credit through allegedly fraudulent government-linked accounts. Allowing the application, the Court noted the settled position that bail is the norm and incarceration before trial is exceptional, and said pre-trial custody should not become punitive. The Court directed release on furnishing a personal bond and sureties totalling ₹1 lakh each, subject to conditions including regular appearance, travel restraint and non-interference with witnesses.
A complaint by a chief manager of a zonal office of Jammu & Kashmir Bank alleged that certain persons activated inactive accounts of a watershed committee, changed the account nomenclature, and issued purported salary certificates and confirmation letters for non-existent employees to obtain personal, cash credit and car loans by impersonating government employees. The complaint also alleged that fraudulent government accounts were opened at another branch, money was routed into the watershed committee accounts, and authority letters were used to have salaries credited to individual accounts, leading to alleged losses to the bank.
During investigation, the applicant (a bank manager posted at the bank’s Rajouri main branch from 22 September 2021) was alleged to have processed loan files running into crores, including personal loan cases of 18 alleged fake employees, and to have ignored discrepancies in salary certificates. The prosecution further referred to bank transfers routed through an account described as “Imperial Trading Company” to the applicant and to an SBI account in the name of the applicant’s wife and stated that a credit card of the applicant was recovered from the main accused upon arrest.
The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered on 29 August 2023 for offences under the IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stating he was arrested on 19 February 2025. He contended that his role was limited to placing documents for consideration, that verification and sanction were by other bank officials, and that prior notice under Section 35 BNSS was not issued. The UT opposed bail, alleging facilitation of impersonation and forged documents, receipt of kickbacks, and sanction under Section 17-A of the PC Act.
The Court recorded certain case-specific circumstances relevant to custody, stating that “The supplementary charge sheet in the case FIR in question is reported to have been presented and pending adjudication before the learned trial court against the petitioner/accused and six others.” “It is not the case of the prosecution that any record is in the possession of the petitioner/accused.” “The co-accused are reported to have been bailed out in the case FIR.” “There appears to be no imperative need of the petitioner/accused in custody.”
On the governing approach to bail, the Court noted the settled formulation that “basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail not jail, except where there are circumstances of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating the witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court.” It further stated 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.”
The Court also set out guiding considerations, recording that “No single rule or a golden litmus test is applicable for consideration of a bail application” and listing factors including “The judicial discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and circumspection;” “That the Court must duly consider the nature and the circumstances of the case;” “Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered;” and “The facts and circumstances of the case play a predominant role.”
Referring to the purpose of bail and limits of pre-trial incarceration, the Court quoted that “the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail.” “The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive.” It further recorded that “punishment beings after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” and that “any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content.”
On the relevance of arrest and custody after filing of the charge-sheet, the Court quoted that “If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed.” and that it is important to ascertain whether the accused “was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required.”
The Court directed: “In the back drop and without touching the merits of the case, application is allowed and the petitioner/accused namely Jatinder Kumar s/o Sh. Dharam Paul Sharma R/o Narwal Bala, Near Shiv Shakti Temple Jammu is admitted to bail in case FIR No. 86 of 2023 dated 29.08.2023 U/Ss 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IP r/w section 7 & 13 PC Act P/S Crime branch Jammu subject to his furnishing surety and personal bond in the amount of Rs.1/- lac each (the surety bond of ₹1,00,000/- to be furnished by two persons from amongst the near relatives of the petitioner, each of whom shall be liable to the extent of ₹50,000/-), to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court and the Superintendent of the Jail concerned, respectively, for assuring his compliance of the following conditions:”
“i) The petitioner/accused shall remain punctual at the trial of the case.”
“ii) The petitioner/accused shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the learned trial court.”
“iii) The petitioner/accused shall not repeat the commission of any crime.”
“iv) The petitioner/accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any of the unexamined prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from making true accounts of the case before the trial court.”
“v) That the petitioner/accused shall furnish permanent and temporary address particulars to the learned trial court and in case of any change in his address the same shall also be communicated to the learned trial court.”
“It is needful to mention that nothing in this order shall be construed as any prejudging of or interference with merits of the case which shall be the subject matter of the trial. The learned trial court shall proceed with the trial of the case strictly in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any references made in this order to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, which are limited only to the consideration and disposal of the present bail application.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Sr. Adv with Mr. Monish Chopra, Adv; Mr. Sahil Sharma, Adv
For the Respondents: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Case Title: Jatinder Kumar vs UT of J&K & Anr.
Case Number: Bail app. No. 82/2025
Bench: Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani
