MOHAMMAD IQBAL WANI vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER (POLICE / HOME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 24.04.2026
Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
Uploaded on: 30 .04.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
Bail App No.05/2026
MOHAMMAD IQBAL WANI
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate.
Vs.

UT OF J&K & ANR.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition,
has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of
BNSS seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No.126/2025
for offences under Section 318(4), 351(2) and 111 of BNS
registered with Police Station, Anantnag, which is stated to
be pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”).
2) Before coming to the grounds on which the
petitioner has sought bail, it would be apt to briefly
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 1 of 14

narrate the facts leading to the filing of the charge
sheet before the learned trial court.
3) On 13.06.2025, Police Station, Anantnag, received a
written complaint submitted by one Tilak Raj, in which he
alleged that he happens to be the husband of Sapna Devi,
the licence holder of NTPF Forest Division, Kishtwar,
regarding sale and purchase of herbal material. According to
the complainant, the petitioner along with co-accused
Tasaduq Hussain Dar and Mujeeb Ahmad Koka, entered into
an agreement with the proprietor, namely, Sapna Devi, in
the month of September, 2024, for selling Garlic (Lahsun)
and received an amount of Rs.1,78,000/ as advance from
the complainant against which they agreed to sell the
material to the complainant withing a period of two days.
However, the petitioner and the co-accused did not deliver
the material to the complainant and demanded extra
payment, whereafter the complainant paid a sum of
Rs.56.00 lakhs to the accused. The complainant approached
the accused persons time and again but they did not deliver
the material and ultimately the accused persons refused to
deliver the material or to return the money which compelled
the complainant to approach the police.

4) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR
No.126/2025 for offences under Section 318(4), 351(2) of
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 2 of 14

BNS was registered at Police Station, Anantnag and
investigation was set into motion. During the course of
investigation, the statement of the complainant under
Section 180 of BNSS was recorded and subsequently his
statement under Section 183 of BNSS was also recorded
before the Magistrate. In his statement he alleged that the
accused persons jointly executed an agreement with him for
sale of wild garlic and accused Tasaduq Hussain Dar sent
him a video of wild garlic with a view of lure him to pay more
money. According to the complainant, he paid an amount of
Rs.55.80 lakhs to the accused persons through bank
transfers as well as in cash for purchase of wild garlic but
they cheated him and fraudulently grabbed his money
without supplying the wild garlic. It was also found that the
accused persons are not authorized or licensed to sell or
purchase the wild garlic, which came to the knowledge of the
complainant at a later stage.
5) During the course of investigation, statements of other
witnesses were also recorded and the material documents
were seized. The bank details of the accused persons and the
complainant were collected and analyzed. It was revealed
that the complainant had transferred a total amount of
Rs.34,16,995/ from different bank accounts into the
accounts of accused persons. The complainant also
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 3 of 14

produced a handwritten cash receipt issued by accused
Tasaduq Hussain Dar, whereby he had acknowledged
receipt of an amount of Rs.13,50,000/. As per opinion of the
Forensic Science Laboratory, the said receipt had been
executed by accused Tasaduq Hussain Dar. It was found
that the accused persons had intention to cheat the
complainant from the very beginning as they did not possess
any license or permission from the Forest Department for
procurement of wild garlic, which was confirmed by the
Divisional Forest Officer, Anantnag.
6) According to the Investigating Agency, it was found that
the accused persons deliberately floated multiple firms
under different names as a pre-planned modus operandi to
cheat and defraud innocent persons by inducing them to
invest money on the pretext of sale and purchase of land,
precious stones, forest produce and other commodities. Call
detail records of the accused persons were also collected and
it was found that all the three accused persons were
frequently in contact with each other which shows that they
were part of a criminal syndicate. It was also found during
investigation that the accused persons had victimized many
more people which depicts their continued criminal
behaviour and, therefore, Sections 61 and 111 of BNS were
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 4 of 14

also invoked in the instant case. The petitioner was arrested
on 07.08.2025.
7) During investigation, transaction statements of all the
linked accounts of the accused persons were obtained and it
was found that there are transactions worth crores of rupees
inter se between the accused persons. It has been alleged
that these inter se transactions indicate that the accused
persons were acting as a syndicate for commission of offence
of cheating as the accused persons, during questioning,
failed to provide any plausible explanation or produce any
relevant documents to justify cash transactions. According
to the Investigating Agency, the cash transactions between
the accused persons are proceeds of the crime.
8) It was found that the petitioner had acquired
immovable property without any verifiable source of income,
which, according to the Investigating Agency, shows that he
had acquired assets through fraudulent means. It was also
found during investigation of the case, that the petitioner
and co-accused had operated as an organized criminal
syndicate to defraud the complainant and similar other
victims.
9) After investigation of the case, the charge sheet was
produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag.
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 5 of 14

However, investigation in the case is being continued even
after filing of the charge sheet as certain other persons are
involved in the crime. After investigation of the case offences
under Section 61, 111, 318(4), 351(2) of BNS stand
established against the petitioner and the two co-accused.
The case is presently pending before the trial court.

10) From the perusal of the trial court record, it appears
that vide order dated 24.09.2025, application of the
petitioner and other co-accused for grant of bail stands
rejected on several grounds including the ground that
investigation of the case at the relevant time was still going
on and the charge sheet had not been filed before the court.
The trial court record further reveals that in terms of order
dated 31.03.2026, charges offences 61(2)(a), 111(2)(b),
111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 111(7), 318(3)(4), 351(2)(3) of BNS
stand framed against the petitioner and the co-accused and
the trial of the case is going on.
11) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that the
complainant has executed agreement dated 19.11.2024, in
which he has declared that there is nothing outstanding
against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the
house constructed by the petitioner has been built up out of
the money borrowed from J&K Bank Branch Peer Takiya,
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 6 of 14

Anantnag, and not out of any proceeds of the crime. It has
been further contended that even if the allegations made in
the complaint are taken to be true, still then it represents a
civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour by the
complainant. It has been also contended that the
Investigation Agency has un-necessarily invoked offence
under Section 111 of BNS without there being involvement
of the petitioner in any continuing unlawful activity, singly
or jointly or as a member of an organized crime syndicate. It
has been contended that in the absence of more than one
charge sheets having been filed against the petitioner during
the past ten years, the ingredients of offence under Section
111 of BNS are not made out against the petitioner. It has
also been contended that investigation of the case is
complete and the charge sheet has already been filed against
the petitioner, as such, depriving him of his liberty would
amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in
law.
12) The bail application has been contested by the
respondent Investigating Agency by filing its reply to the
same, in which it has been contended that the conduct of
the accused is marked by coercion and intimidation of
victims which indicates that there is a strong likelihood that
in case the petitioner is granted bail, he may threaten or
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 7 of 14

influence the witnesses. It has been further contended that
there is sufficient material on the record of the charge sheet
to indicate involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime
which is very heinous in nature. It has been also contended
that further investigation of the case is still going on and in
case the petitioner is admitted to bail, it may adversely
impact further course of investigation.
13) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record including the trial court
record.
14) It is by now a settled position of law that while
considering the bail application of an accused, the following
factors are required to be kept in mind by the Court:
(i). The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of
accusation and severity of punishment in case of a
conviction;
(ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension
of the accused tampering with the witnesses or being
a threat to the complainant or the witnesses’
(ii). The possibility of securing presence of the
accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused
fleeing from justice;
(iv). The antecedents and circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused;
(v). Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence
are made out on the basis of the material collected by
the Investigating Agency;
(vi) The interests of the public or the State and similar
other considerations.
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 8 of 14

15) The aforesaid principles have evolved from the various
judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in a
number of cases including Prahlad Singh Bhatti vs. NCT of
Delhi, (2001) 9 SCC 280, Ram Govind Upadhyay vs.
Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598, State of UP vs.
Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar vs. Ashish Chatterji, (2010) 14 SCC 496, Sanjay
Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and P. Chidambaram
vs. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 791.
16) Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner
is facing trial for offences under offences 61(2)(a), 111(2)(b),
111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 111(7), 318(3)(4), 351(2)(3) of BNS.
Excepting offences under Section 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4),
111(6) and 111(7), all other offences carries a maximum
punishment upto seven years imprisonment. Even though
offence under Section 111 BNS carry a punishment of life
imprisonment with a minimum punishment of 3/5 years
along with fine, nonetheless there is no statutory or legal bar
in enlarging an accused on bail facing trial for such offences.
The chargesheet against the petitioner has already been filed
and the trial is going on. Therefore, in normal circumstances
there should be no difficulty in acceding to the request of the
petitioner for grant of bail. However, learned GA appearing
on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently contended that
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 9 of 14

as per the antecedents of the petitioner, he is a member of
organized criminal syndicate and the further investigation of
the case is still going on, as such, he does not deserve the
concession of bail. It has been contended that the petitioner
is involved in an economic offence of a huge magnitude and
he has accumulated assets out of proceeds of the crime,
therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail.
17) So far as the contention of the respondents that the
petitioner is involved in an economic offence, is concerned,
in this regard the Supreme Court has, in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, after relying upon the
observations made by the said Court P. Chidambaram’s
case (supra), held that all economic offences cannot be
categorized into one group and deny bail on that basis. It has
been laid down that gravity of the offence, the object of the
Special Act and the attending circumstances are a few of the
factors to be taken note of along with the period of sentence.
Thus, consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on
the facts involved in a particular case. Merely because the
petitioner in the present case is involved in an economic
offence would by itself be not a reason sufficient to deny him
the concession of bail.
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 10 of 14

18) So far as involvement of the petitioner in offence as
defined under Section 111 of BNS is concerned, learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the
prosecution case, two charge sheets, in which cognizance
has been taken by the competent court, are pending against
the petitioner. One of these charge sheets arises out of FIR
No.16/2020 of Police Station Achabal, that was filed before
the competent court on 16.09.2023 whereas other case
arises out of FIR No.24/2005 for offence under Section 379
of RPC registered with Police Station, M. R. Ganj Srinagar
and the charge sheet in the said cases has been filed on
25.03.2005 before the Court of City Magistrate, Srinagar. It
has been contended that as per Explanation-II to sub-
section (1) of Section 111 of BNS, continued unlawful activity
is constituted if more than one charge sheet have been filed
before the competent court within preceding period of ten
years but in the instant case the charge sheet arising out of
FIR No.24/2005 has been filed more than 20 years back,
therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 111 of
BNS are not made out against the petitioner. It has been
contended that the learned trial court has fallen into error
while framing charge for offence under Section 111 of BNS
against the petitioner.
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 11 of 14

19) The issue, whether offence under Section 111 of BNS is
made out against the petitioner, is subject matter of
determination in other petitions filed by co-accused seeking
quashment of the order framing charges. Therefore, this
Court would not like to express any opinion on this issue.
However, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is being
taken note of for the limited purpose of deciding this bail
application. Prima facie, the aforesaid contention appears to
be full of merit. Thus, even on merits, there appears to be a
prima facie case for extending the concession of bail in favour
of the petitioner.
20) Apart from the above, merely because the petitioner is
involved in a case which carries maximum punishment of
life imprisonment would not disentitle him from concession
of bail. No doubt, the charge framed against the petitioner is
grave and serious in nature but the Supreme Court has time
and again emphasized the principle that “bail is the rule and
jail is the exception”. Reliance in this regard can be placed
on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of
Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1920 and Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of
India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945.

21) Thus, merely because the petitioner has been charged
for an offence which carries maximum punishment upto life
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 12 of 14

imprisonment, he cannot be denied the concession bail,
particularly when the chargesheet stands produced against
him and he has spent more than eight months in jail.
Denying the concession of bail to the petitioner in a case of
present nature may not be a proper exercise of discretion
vested with this Court under Section 483 of BNSS as the
same would militate against the principle that “bail is the
rule and jail is exception”.
22) So far contention of the respondents that further
investigation of the case is in progress, is concerned, in this
regard it is to be noted that further investigation of the case
relates to involvement of other accused in the alleged crime.
So far as investigation with regard to role of the petitioner is
concerned, the same is already complete. Therefore, further
investigation of the case cannot be a ground to deny the
concession of bail to the petitioner.
23) In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
present application of the petitioner is allowed and he is
admitted to bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the
amount of Rs.1.00 lac (rupees one lac) with
two sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court;

(ii) That he shall appear before the learned trial
court on each and every date of hearing till
conclusion of the trial.
Bail App No.05/2026 Page 13 of 14

(iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of
the Union Territory of J&K without prior
permission of the learned trial court;

(iv) That he shall not intimidate or tamper with
prosecution witnesses/evidence.
24) Observations made hereinabove shall remain confined
to the decision of the instant application only and shall not
be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
(v) Bail application shall stand disposed of
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar
30.04.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes





Bail App No.05/2026 Page 14 of 14