Bail Is Rule, Jail Exception: High Court Grants Bail To J&K Bank Manager In Alleged Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case

While allowing the bail application, Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani strongly reiterated the settled constitutional principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and cautioned against converting pre-trial detention into punitive incarceration.

The bail was granted in Bail Application arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Background:

The FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Chief Manager J&K Bank, Jammu. The complaint alleged a well-planned conspiracy by certain individuals, including contractual employees associated with the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP), who allegedly activated dormant government accounts of Watershed Committees at different branches of J&K Bank.

The petitioner, Jatinder Kumar, was posted as Manager at the J&K Bank Main Branch, Rajouri in September 2021. His name did not appear in the original FIR, but he was implicated during the course of investigation and arrested on 19 February 2025. His earlier bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, prompting him to approach the High Court.

The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and that his role was limited to placing loan applications before the competent authority. Submitting that several co-accused had already been granted bail, the petitioner argued that his continued incarceration amounted to a “pre-trial conviction” and a violation of his personal liberty.

Opposing the bail plea, the Union Territory alleged that he misused his official position and received kickbacks both in cash and through bank transactions, with the prosecution claiming that a money trail clearly established his complicity.

High Court's Observations:

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, the High Court noted that the supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused had already been presented before the trial court. Importantly, the Court recorded that “it is not the case of the prosecution that any record is in the possession of the petitioner/accused.”

The Court also took note of the fact that co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail and observed that there appears to be no imperative need of the petitioner/accused in custody. It further noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since February 2025.

Reiterating settled law, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, observing,

“Basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail not jail, except where there are circumstances of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating the witnesses.”

The Court emphasized that no straightjacket formula exists for deciding bail applications and that judicial discretion must be exercised with utmost care and circumspection.

The Court also relied on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to underline the constitutional importance of personal liberty, quoting the Supreme Court's observation that,

“The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive… Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial.”

The Court reiterated that imprisonment before conviction has substantial punitive content and courts must guard against denying bail merely as a measure of moral disapproval.

Placing reliance on Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., the High Court observed that even though the grant or refusal of bail lies within judicial discretion, “such discretion must be exercised in a judicious manner and in a humane way.”

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the petitioner on furnishing personal and surety bonds totalling ₹1 lakh, subject to stringent conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, restriction on foreign travel, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, and disclosure of address particulars.

Clarifying the limited scope of the order, the Court concluded,

“Nothing in this order shall be construed as any prejudging of or interference with merits of the case which shall be the subject matter of the trial.”

The trial court was accordingly directed to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations made in the bail order.

Case Title: Jatinder Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment