In a significant ruling that clarifies the judicial approach to granting bail in serious offences, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to a bank manager accused in a multi-crore financial fraud and corruption case. The court, while delivering the verdict, underscored that granting bail in cases that attract the death penalty or life imprisonment is an "exception and not the rule."
Court Rejects 'Golden Test', Lays Down Bail Principles
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, presiding over the case, made it clear that there is no single rule or a golden litmus test universally applicable for considering bail pleas. Instead, he outlined that courts and magistrates must keep certain material principles and guidelines in mind. The judicial discretion, he stated, must be exercised with the utmost care and circumspection after considering the nature and circumstances of each unique case.
The court listed several vital factors that must be weighed in the "judicial scales" while deciding on bail:
- Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with.
- Risk of the investigation being hampered.
- Potential for the judicial process to be impeded or subverted.
- The nature of the charge and the accompanying evidence.
- The punishment the accused may be liable for upon conviction.
Justice Wani emphasized that the court's role at the bail stage is not to conduct a preliminary trial but to ascertain if a prima facie case exists to proceed to trial. The liberty of an individual, the court noted, must be balanced against the larger interests of society and the State.
Details of the Multi-Crore Bank Fraud Case
The case stems from an FIR registered in 2023 by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Jammu crime branch. The prosecution alleged a complex criminal conspiracy led by co-accused individuals to defraud a bank of crores of rupees. The accused bank manager, arrested in February 2025, was implicated for his alleged role in processing fraudulent loans.
According to the state, represented by Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, the conspirators used fake salary certificates and confirmation letters to pose as government employees. They allegedly activated dormant government accounts and changed their nomenclature to facilitate the grant of personal, cash credit, and car loans.
The prosecution claimed the petitioner bank manager worked "casually and remained hand in glove" with the co-accused. He was accused of processing loan files for 18 fake employees, deliberately ignoring glaring discrepancies in their documents to provide them undue benefits. It was alleged he received bribes via cash and bank transactions.
The charges invoked were severe, including sections of the Indian Penal Code for cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, alongside sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribery and criminal misconduct by a public servant.
Why Bail Was Granted Despite Serious Charges
In its decision to grant bail, the court considered the fact that the co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Justice Wani reiterated that the question of bail depends on a variety of circumstances, and the cumulative effect of all factors must inform the judicial verdict. No single factor can be treated as having universal validity for justifying the grant or refusal of bail.
The court clarified that its order granting relief to the bank manager is strictly limited to the bail application and will have no bearing on the merits of the case, which will be determined during the trial. This distinction is crucial in preserving the integrity of the ongoing legal process while upholding the accused's right to seek liberty during a protracted trial.
This ruling serves as an important precedent for lower courts in Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh, reinforcing a balanced, principled, and case-specific approach to bail—especially in matters involving grave economic offences and corruption where the alleged loss runs into crores of public money.
