Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court says ‘bail exception, not rule in death penalty, life term cases’, gives relief in fraud case

While laying down the guidelines for the consideration of bail applications, the court said that it should weigh in the judicial scales, pros and cons varying from case to case.

“Grant of bail quo an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception and not the rule,” it added.

Case

The case arose from the bail application of a bank manager, who was arrested in February 2025 under Sections 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), 429 (mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming cattle, etc, of the value of fifty rupees or upwards),467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (ssing as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of IPC besides Section 7 (offence relating to public servant being bribed), and 13 (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The FIR was registered in 2023 by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Jammu crime branch alleged a complex criminal conspiracy led by the co-accused in the case.

The prosecution claimed that a group of persons, led by the co-accused in the case, conspired to defraud the bank of crores of rupees, and the accused person allegedly used fake salary certificates and confirmation letters to pose as government employees.

Appearing for the state, additional advocate general Monika Kohli submitted that they activate/dormant government accounts and change their nomenclature to facilitate the grant of personal, cash credit, and car loans.

It was alleged that the petitioner bank manager worked “casually and remained hand in glove” with the co-accused and processed loan files for 18 fake employees, deliberately ignoring obvious discrepancies in their documents to provide them with undue benefits, and received bribes in the form of cash and bank transactions.

Key findings

• The judicial discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and circumspection.
• The court must duly consider the nature and the circumstances of the case.
• Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
• Investigation being hampered or v. The judicial process being impeded or subverted.
• The liberty of an individual must be balanced against the larger interests of society and the State.
• The court must weigh in the judicial scales, pros and cons varying from case to case.
• Grant of bail quo an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception and not the rule.
  The court at this stage is not conducting a preliminary trial but only seeking whether there is a case to go to trial.
• The nature of the charge is the vital factor; the nature of evidence is also pertinent, the punishment to which the party may be liable also bears upon the matter, and the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses or otherwise polluting the course of justice also has a bearing on the matter.

Decision

While observing that the co-accused were granted bail in the case, the court said that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict, and any single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity for justifying the grant or refusal of bail.

The court clarified that its order will have no bearing on the case’s merits, which was the subject matter of the trial.