Economic Offences Cannot Be Treated As Separate Class For Denial Of Bail; Gravity Of Charge Not Sufficient To Deny Liberty: J&K&L High Court

The Court observed that once investigation qua an accused is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, continued incarceration must be justified on legally sustainable grounds and not merely on the seriousness of allegations.

Allowing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Justice Sanjay Dhar granted bail to an accused facing trial for offences under Sections 61, 111, 318 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including allegations relating to organized crime and large-scale cheating.

The Court observed,

".. 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."

Background:

The case arose out of FIR registered at Police Station Anantnag on the basis of a complaint alleging that the accused persons had induced the complainant to part with substantial sums of money on the representation that they would supply wild garlic (Lahsun).

According to the complainant, an initial advance was paid pursuant to an agreement, after which further payments amounting to several lakhs of rupees were made. Despite receiving the money, the accused allegedly neither supplied the promised material nor returned the amount.

During investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, collected banking records and examined documentary material. The investigation allegedly revealed that substantial amounts had been transferred into accounts linked to the accused persons and that they did not possess the requisite authorization or licence for procurement and sale of wild garlic.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused for offences under Sections 61, 111, 318(4) and 351(2) BNS. Charges were subsequently framed by the trial court and the trial had commenced.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the dispute essentially arose out of a commercial transaction which had been given a criminal colour. He further argued that the ingredients of Section 111 BNS dealing with organized crime were not attracted because the statutory requirement relating to continuing unlawful activity was not satisfied in his case. It was also contended that the investigation against him stood completed and his continued detention amounted to pre-trial punishment.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, contending that the petitioner was part of an organized criminal syndicate, that further investigation was still in progress, and that there existed a possibility of witness intimidation if he was released on bail.

Court's Observation:

At the outset, the Court reiterated the established principles governing grant of bail, including the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering with evidence, antecedents of the accused, likelihood of securing his presence during trial and broader public interest considerations.

Examining the facts of the case, the Court noted that although some of the offences invoked against the petitioner carried punishment extending to life imprisonment, there existed no statutory embargo against grant of bail. The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was underway, circumstances which ordinarily weigh in favour of release on bail.

Addressing the prosecution's contention regarding the economic nature of the offence, Justice Dhar relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and held that economic offences cannot be mechanically grouped together for the purpose of denying liberty.

The Court observed,

"All economic offences cannot be categorized into one group and deny bail on that basis."

The Bench emphasized that the gravity of an offence, the statutory framework and the surrounding circumstances must be assessed on a case-to-case basis and that mere invocation of an economic offence is not sufficient to deny bail.

The Court also took note of the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of Section 111 BNS. It was argued that one of the charge-sheets relied upon by the prosecution had been filed more than twenty years ago and therefore could not satisfy the requirement of "continuing unlawful activity" within the preceding ten years as contemplated by the statute.

While refraining from expressing a final opinion because the issue was pending in separate proceedings challenging the order framing charge, the Court nevertheless found prima facie merit in the contention for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application.

Significantly, the Court reiterated that seriousness of the offence alone cannot justify refusal of bail. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the continued relevance of the principle that liberty remains the norm and detention an exception.

The Court observed,

"... Merely because the petitioner has been charged for an offence which carries maximum punishment upto life 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."

The Court further held that pendency of further investigation concerning involvement of other persons in the alleged crime could not constitute a valid ground for denying bail to the petitioner once investigation regarding his role had already been completed.

Holding that continued incarceration of the petitioner would be inconsistent with the settled principles governing grant of bail, the High Court allowed the application.

The Court granted bail subject to conditions requiring the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, appear before the trial court on each date of hearing, refrain from leaving the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court, and abstain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Case Title: Mohammad Iqbal Wani v. UT of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment