IRFAN MAJID ZARGAR vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING (CRIME BRANCH) AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

Bail App. No. 52/2026
CrlM No. 439/2026

Reserved on: 08.05.2026
Pronounced on: 13.05.2026
Uploaded on: 14.05.2026

Operative part or full Judgement: Full


Irfan Majid Zargar (42 Years)
S/O Ab. Majid Zargar,
Through his wife Aliya Gulzar (35 Years)
R/O Sheikh Mohalla Bonagam, Shopian





…Petitioner(s)
Through :
Mr. G. A. Lone, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi,
Adv.

Vs.

1. UT of J&K through








...Respondent(s)
Crime Branch/J&K,
Economic Offences Wing,
Srinagar.


2. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch/J&K,
Economic Offences Wing,
Srinagar.

3. Investigating Officer of FIR No.30/2025
Crime Branch/J&K,
Economic Offences Wing,
Srinagar.

Through:
Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, AC
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

01. Through the medium of the instant bail application filed under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”),
the applicant seeks the concession of bail in Case FIR No. 30/2025
(arising from FIR No. 168/2025 of P/S Shopian), registered at P/S
1

Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Srinagar. The
applicant is alleged to have committed the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 340(2), and 61(2)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), read with Section 66(2) of the
Information Technology Act.
02. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present bail
application are that the applicant-Irfan Majid Zargar, came to be
arrested on 13.02.2026 in connection with FIR No. 168/2025, initially
registered at Police Station Shopian and subsequently transferred to
the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch Kashmir, Srinagar,
where it was re-registered as Case FIR No. 30/2025 dated 13.02.2026.
The allegations pertain to certain alleged financial irregularities and
fraudulent transactions in HDFC Bank, Branch Shopian, during the
period when the applicant was serving as Branch Head.
03. The prosecution case, in brief, is that fictitious entries were allegedly
made in the account of Freshmen Foods Pvt. Ltd. unauthorized
withdrawals amounting to approximately Rs.1.35 crore were allegedly
effected through forged cheques; cash deposit certificates were issued
without actual deposits; and certain loan accounts were shown as
closed despite continuation of transactions therein. It is further alleged
that lien release letters in respect of mortgaged properties were issued
after the purported settlement of liabilities.
04. The applicant, however, contends that he has been falsely implicated
in the present case and that the alleged entries and transactions were
carried out by subordinate staff responsible for cash handling, ledger
posting, and account operations. It is submitted that no direct evidence
2

connects him with the commission of the alleged offences and that no
financial loss has actually been caused to the Bank. It is further
asserted that he has fully cooperated with the investigation and is no
longer required for custodial interrogation, particularly in view of the
fact that he already stands remanded to judicial custody.
05. The applicant has further emphasized his serious medical condition,
stating that he is a kidney transplant patient who underwent renal
transplantation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, in the year
2015 and requires continuous medical supervision,
immunosuppressive medication, hygienic conditions, and periodic
follow-up treatment. It is pleaded that the continued detention of the
applicant in jail poses a grave risk to his health and life.
06. The applicant accordingly seeks grant of bail under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inter alia, on the grounds
of false implication, lack of incriminating evidence, completion of
custodial investigation, permanent roots in society, absence of any
likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and
the critical medical condition of the applicant, which is stated to be
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
07. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, under the Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) of the Bank, the recording of ledger
entries and physical handling of cash primarily falls within the domain
of the Cashier and Hall Manager. It is thus contended that the
applicant, in his administrative capacity as Branch Head, cannot be
treated as the primary author or executor of the disputed transactions.
Learned counsel further argues that no actual siphoning or
3

embezzlement of the Bank’s funds has occurred and that, at best, the
allegations disclose procedural irregularities rather than the
commission of any criminal offence. It is also contended that certain
subordinate employees, in an attempt to evade departmental as well as
criminal liability, have sought to shift the blame upon the applicant.
08. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer, in an application
dated 18.02.2026, specifically stated that he was no longer required
for custodial interrogation and accordingly sought his remand to
judicial custody. In such circumstances, the continued incarceration of
the applicant is assailed as amounting to pre-trial punishment. A
substantial ground urged by the applicant pertains to the precarious
medical condition of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is
a kidney transplant recipient since the year 2015 and is dependent
upon life-long immunosuppressive medication. According to the
applicant, the sterile environment, strict renal diet, and continuous
medical supervision necessary for his survival are not available within
the prison environment, thereby exposing him to grave risk of
infection and possible organ failure.
09. It is pleaded that the applicant came to be arrested on 13.02.2026 and
was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2026.
Learned counsel submits that the investigation in the matter now
stands completed and the charge-sheet has already been presented
before the competent Court. Consequently, no further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is stated to be necessary.
10. It is further pleaded that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shopian, vide order dated 04.03.2026, rejected the bail application of
4

the applicant primarily on the ground that he, being a bank official,
had access to the internal systems and documents of the Bank and that
there existed an apprehension that, in the event of his release on bail,
he might tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses.
11. Learned counsel, however, contends that such apprehension no longer
survives once the investigation stands concluded and all relevant
documentary as well as electronic evidence has already been seized
and collected by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that
the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the
Court below vide order dated 06.05.2026 and, therefore, the applicant
is also entitled to be admitted to bail on the principle of parity.
12. The applicant is stated to have deep roots in society, being a
permanent resident of Shopian and the sole breadwinner of his family
comprising his wife, elderly parents, and two minor children, all of
whom are stated to be dependent upon him.
13. Per contra , the Respondent, represented by the Crime Branch, paints
a starkly different picture, characterizing the applicant as the
"principal architect" of a meticulously planned and organized
financial scam. The investigation was triggered by a physical shortfall
of Rs.1.35 Crores in the branch. The prosecution alleges that the
applicant directed the posting of eight fictitious deposit transactions
on 09.06.2025 to mask this deficit a claim supported by CCTV
footage and bank records showing the total absence of the purported
customers.
14. The prosecution further alleges that the accused cheated M/S
Freshman Foods Pvt. Ltd. by withdrawing Rs. 1.35 Crores via forged
5

cheques, while simultaneously and deceptively issuing a "Lien
Removal Letter" to the firm. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
reports establish that the signatures of the firm's trustees on the
cheques were forged. Crucially, the FSL opinion confirms that 36 out
of 37 fake Fixed Deposit (FD) receipts, amounting to approximately
Rs. 3 Crores, bear the handwriting and signatures of the applicant
himself. The investigation concludes that the applicant, in conspiracy
with others, caused a total wrongful loss of Rs. 5,86,76,487/- to 14
victims.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
material on record.
16. Learned senior counsel for the applicant, while augmenting the
arguments, submitted that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on
documentary evidence which is already in the safe custody of the
investigating agency, thereby ruling out any possibility of tampering.
It was further argued that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception,"
and since the I.O. has himself conceded that custodial interrogation is
no longer required, the liberty of the applicant cannot be curtailed as a
matter of punitive detention. Learned senior counsel underscored that
the medical condition of the applicant specifically his status as a renal
transplant survivor demands a level of hygiene and medical
supervision that the jail authorities cannot provide, and any further
delay in his release could result in an irreversible violation of his
Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
17. In opposition, the learned counsel for the Respondent State submitted
that the applicant, by misusing his high-ranking position in a premier
6

financial institution, has not only defrauded individual depositors but
has also shaken the public's confidence in the banking system. It was
argued that economic offences of such magnitude constitute a "class
apart" and must be viewed with extreme provincial severity. It is
further submitted that the FSL report unequivocally links the applicant
to the forged instruments, establishing a prima facie case of a grave
and heinous nature. It was emphasized that the applicant’s influence
over the witnesses, who are largely his former subordinates and local
bank customers, remains a potent threat to the integrity of the trial,
and as such, his release at this stage would be detrimental to the
interests of justice.
18. The applicant has been in custody since 13.02.2026. The investigation
in the matter admittedly stands concluded and charge-sheet has
already been filed before the competent Court. Once the investigation
is complete and the evidence stands collected, continued custodial
detention of the applicant is ordinarily not required unless compelling
circumstances exist. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasized that after filing of the charge-sheet, unnecessary
incarceration should be avoided and the Courts must lean in favour of
liberty unless the prosecution demonstrates compelling reasons for
continued detention.
19. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding tampering
with evidence also does not appear to carry substantial weight at this
stage, particularly when the documentary and electronic evidence
already stands seized and forms part of the charge-sheet. In State of
7

Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that where investigation is complete and there is no
substantial possibility of the accused absconding or tampering with
evidence, bail should ordinarily follow.
20. This Court also takes note of the fact that some of the co-accused
namely, Ajali Jan, Rifat Samad Sofi, Javeed Ahmad Bhat, John
Mohammad Bhat, Javid Iqbal Mir and Usman Nisar have already
been granted bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2026. The
principle of parity is an important consideration in matters relating to
bail and similarly situated accused cannot ordinarily be treated
differently in absence of distinguishing circumstances. No exceptional
circumstance has been pointed out by the prosecution which would
justify denial of bail to the present applicant alone.
21. The settled legal position is that bail is the rule and jail is an
exception. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC
22 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the grant of bail is a
general rule and refusal is an exception, keeping in view the mandate
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India safeguarding personal
liberty.
22. Similarly, in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventive and that deprivation of liberty
before conviction has a substantial punitive content. The Court further
observed that detention pending trial should not be resorted to merely
as a matter of punishment. Paragraph Nos. 39, 40 and 46, being
relevant are extracted as under:-
8

“ 39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts
have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds : the
primary ground is that offence alleged against the accused
persons is very serious involving deep rooted planning in
which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the
secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons
tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is
that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged
document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a
term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that
the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time,
the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted,
also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to
grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity
of the punishment should be taken into consideration.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of
the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by
the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the
same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of
the sentiments of the community against the accused. The
primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the
accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of
keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep
the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether
before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the
jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon
whenever his presence is required.
xxx xxx xxx
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of
the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the
economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight
of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed
investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the
Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the
custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are
of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail
pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the
apprehension expressed by CBI”.

23. The prime ground seeking grant of bail in this application is that the
applicant had undergone a kidney transplant and that he requires
continuous medical supervision with scheduled follow-up
consultation. As on 02.07.2025, he had suffered serious setback in his
9

health; that he requires strict renal diet and immunosuppressive
medication with strict hygienic practices and open space to minimize
the risk of infection; that he had also been advised to avoid physical
exertion and exposure to crowd on unsanitary environments to avoid
the risk of infection. The applicant has placed on record the medical
records pertaining to his having undergone kidney transplantation at
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, in the year 2015 and other
documents evidencing his renal medical condition. In view of the
serious ailment from which the applicant has suffered and for which
he requires medical attention and precautions to maintain his health,
in the considered opinion of this Court, applicant is entitled to be
admitted to bail on medical grounds.
24. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case lest it may
prejudice the trial, this Court is of the considered view that further
incarceration of the accused is not warranted particularly when the
investigation stands completed, charge-sheet has been filed, co-
accused have already been enlarged on bail and the applicant is stated
to be suffering from health ailments.
25. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed and the applicant
is directed to be released on bail in FIR No. 30/2025 subject to the
following conditions that the applicant shall:
(i) furnish personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction
of the trial Court;
10

(ii) appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of
hearing unless exempted, and cooperate with the trial
proceedings and shall not misuse the concession of bail;
(iii) not influence, threaten or contact the prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly;
(iv) not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner,
whatsoever;
(v) not leave the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
without prior permission of the trial Court; and
(vi) surrender his passport, if any, with the Trial Court.
26. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the
purpose of disposal of the present bail application and shall not be
construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
27. Disposed of accordingly.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
13.05.2026
Manzoor




Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Srinagar
13.05.2026 21.15
11