J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Allegedly Fake 'Bahubali' Co-Producer Accused Of Fraud
While granting bail to a man who had claimed to be a “Co-Producer” of the movie Bahubali, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that mere pendency of criminal cases elsewhere, without resulting convictions, cannot be a ground to keep an accused in jail for an indefinite period once the investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed.The Court was hearing a...
While granting bail to a man who had claimed to be a “Co-Producer” of the movie Bahubali, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that mere pendency of criminal cases elsewhere, without resulting convictions, cannot be a ground to keep an accused in jail for an indefinite period once the investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed.
The Court was hearing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking release of the petitioner, who faces prosecution for alleged fraudulent inducement to obtain money.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while deciding the matter, noted that while considering bail, it is essential to ensure that the process is not converted into a form of pre-trial punishment, observing that “mere pendency of multiple FIRs against an accused cannot by itself be a ground to deny bail in a case where the maximum punishment for the offence for which the accused is charged extends upto seven or ten years, particularly when the chargesheet stands produced against him and he has spent more than one and a half years in jail as an undertrial”.
Thus, the Court held that “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”.
The case arose from an FIR lodged at Police Station Anantnag alleging that the petitioner fraudulently induced the complainant, an Army Officer, to transfer ₹1.06 crores by falsely claiming to be a wealthy businessman and a co-producer of the well-known film franchise 'Bahubali'.
The prosecution, represented by Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri, asserted that the petitioner projected himself as financially influential, showed photographs with public figures, claimed ownership of property in Delhi, and promised large-scale investments in Kashmir. It was alleged that he dishonestly obtained money on the pretext of arranging property transactions and financing business ventures.
Investigation revealed transfers made into accounts linked with the petitioner and his associates. Search and seizures included multiple identity documents, cheques, electronic devices and property papers. The police also reported that the individual portrayed as his secretary was in fact a hired driver.
The petitioner, represented by Advocates Areeb Kawoosa and Aatir Kawoosa, had earlier filed bail pleas that were rejected by subordinate courts, while the Madras High Court had cancelled his bail in one of the cases.
The complainant opposed bail, citing several FIRs registered against the petitioner in Tamil Nadu, asserting that he is a habitual cheat and a flight risk.
The J&K and Ladakh High Court examined the legal principles governing bail, including the nature of accusations, severity of sentence, possibility of absconding, and likelihood of tampering with evidence. It reiterated that economic offences attract scrutiny but do not create a statutory bar on bail.
Referring to Supreme Court authorities including Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench emphasised the fundamental rule that deprivation of liberty cannot be continued merely on assumptions once a chargesheet has been filed.
The Bench observed that although FIRs from Tamil Nadu exist, they relate to similar offences and are still pending adjudication. It held that pending cases, “without there being any conviction against him,” cannot justify keeping a person incarcerated indefinitely.
The Court further recorded that more than ₹56 lakhs of the disputed amount has been returned during various proceedings, and additional cheque-bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed during the petitioner's custody, affecting his ability to defend himself if detention continues.
Noting that the petitioner has remained in custody for over one and a half years, the Court held that securing his presence at trial can be ensured by imposing stringent conditions.
The concern of the Investigating Agency about the availability of the petitioner for facing trial before the Magistrate, the Court held, “can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions of bail upon the petitioner”. However, refusing bail to the petitioner simply because several other cases of a similar nature are pending against him without there being any conviction, the Court concluded, “would amount to inflicting punishment upon the petitioner without trial, which is impermissible in law”.
Accordingly, the application was allowed. The petitioner was admitted to bail subject to strict conditions, including execution of bond with solvent sureties or deposit through a fixed-deposit receipt, no inducement to witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving the country without permission, disclosure of residence and mobile number, and permissibility for prosecution to monitor movements and seek cancellation of bail upon violation of conditions.
Case Title: Nagaraj V vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: Areeb Kawoosa and Aatir Kawoosa Advocates
For Respondents: Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri