Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Vinod Koul vs Police Station Anti Corruption on 15 October, 2025

                                                                     Sr. No.172
                                                                     Supp. List
  IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR
           CRM (M) 634/2025 CrlM 1564/2025 CrlM 1565/2025

VINOD KOUL                                            ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

Through:     Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with
             Mr. Sikander Hayat Khan & Mr. Numan Zargar, Advocates
                                     Vs.

POLICE STATION            ANTI     CORRUPTION                      ...Respondent(s)
BUREAU & ORS
Through:
CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
                     ORDER

15.10.2025

CRM(M) No. 634/2025

1. Issue notice to the respondents 1 & 2 in the main petition as well as in the interim applications, returnable by the next date of hearing through the office of the learned Sr. AAG, Srinagar.

2. Notice, returnable by the next date of hearing, subject to taking of steps for service within a week's period shall go to the respondent No. 3 for filing of his response/objections in the matter.

3. List on 26.11.2025.

1. Through the medium of the instant application, the petitioner seeks the grant of pre-arrest bail in his favour in case FIR No. 19/2025 registered with thePolice Station,Anti Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, impugned in the main petition on the grounds inter alia that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law for having been registered after 10 years of the alleged act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner; that the entire process of registration of the impugned FIR is an attempt being made by the complainants to involve him in a case in which there was no element of criminal intention on his part; that he is a retired Government servant and is presently of the age of 67 years; that the basic complaint leading to the registration of the impugned FIR does not name any officer/official of the Government, however, raises allegations againstthe officers of the Revenue Department as well as the Custodian Department for causing financial loss to the State exchequer; that the contents of the impugned FIR, even if taken in its entirety to be true, do not disclose the commission of any offence, much less an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir, Prevention of Corruption Act (hereafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and Section 120-B of RPC; that the alleged incident relates to the year 2014 when he was in service, and it is only in October 2018, i.e., three years after his superannuation in 2015, that he purchased land measuring 1 kanal 5marlas falling under Khasra No. 70; that there is no nexus of the alleged occurrence with the misuse of official position as alleged,which is a sine qua nonfor invoking the provisions of the Act; that there is nothing in the impugned FIR to suggest that he obtained any pecuniary advantage for himself either directly in indirectly which would make him liable to be booked under the provisions of the Act and that he undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of grant of pre-arrest bail in his favour.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner in respect of his prayer for grant of interim reliefwho, inter alia submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed the alleged offences, who has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the case FIR. He contended that the petitioner is deeply rooted in society and he shall abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss in terms of his reputation in the estimation of the society if he gets arrested on account of the false allegations.

3. Issue notice to the respondents as above in this application too for filing of objections.

4. A ground appears to be made out, in the opinion of the Court, for grant of interim pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner in case FIR No. 19/2025 registered withPolice Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, subject to some reasonable conditions.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in its Judgments cited as SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre Vs. State of Maharastra decided on 02/12/2010, AIR 2011 SC 312 and Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another decided on January 29, 2020 by a larger bench 2020 SC online 98, has interpreted law on the subject of anticipatory bail with a very wide outlook and while interpreting the concept of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of our country in a flexible and broader sense. The Hon'ble Apex Court has admittedly in the Judgments held the earlier law on the subject laid down in Chain Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 4 SCC 572; Salau-ud-din Abdul Samad Heikh vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1996 SC 1042; K. L. Verma vs. state and another 1996 (7) SCALE 20; Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar and another AIR @))% SC 498; 2005 AIR (Criminal) 112; Adri Dharan Das vs. state of West Bengal AIR 2005 SC 1057 and Naresh Kumar Yadoo vs. Ravinder Kumar and others 2008 AIR (SC 218) decided on 23rd October 2007, as per incuriam.

6. It was held by the Apex Court in "SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre Vs. State of Maharastra decided on 02/12/2010, AIR 2011 SC 312" that purpose of Anticipatory Bail is to uphold cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty and that section 438 need not be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Discretion must be exercised on the basis of available material and facts of particular case. It has also been held in the said case that anticipatory bail cannot be granted for a limited period. Accused released on anticipatory bail cannot be compelled to surrender before trial court and again apply for regular bail. It is contrary to the spirit of section 438 and also amounts to deprivation of her personal liberty. Ordinarily, benefit of grant of anticipatory bail should continue till end of trial of that case unless bail is cancelled on fresh circumstances. That grant or refusal of bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case.

7. The following factors and parameters have been laid down for consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:

"a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

e) Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of section 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

i) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

8. It is profitable to reproduce a relevant complex extract from the said judgment as under:-

"....The inner urge for freedom is a natural phenomenon of every human being. Respect for life and property is not merely a norm or a policy of the state but an essential requirement of any civilized society. Just as the liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order." "A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. In case, the state considers some suggestions laid down by the Apex Court, it may not be necessary to curtail the personal liberty of the accused in a routine manner. As reported by and large nearly 60% of the arrests are either unnecessary or unjustified. As held, the arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under section 438 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with caution and prudence. It is imperative to sensitize judicial officers, police officers and investigating officers so that they can properly comprehend the importance of personal liberty viz-a-viz social interests. Once the anticipatory bail is granted then the protection should ordinarily be available till the end of the trial."

9. In the recent judgment of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another decided on 29, January 2020 a larger bench of Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to inter-alia lay down the following guiding principles for consideration of the pre-arrest bail applications by the Courts:

(i) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. P.C. compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section

438.

(ii) The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.

(iii) Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

(iv) Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. An order of anticipatory bail should not be blanket in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.

(v) An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail.

10.List as above.

11.In the meantime, subject to any vacation or modification upon the consideration of objections/arguments of the other side, and till next date of hearing before the Bench, the respondents are directed that, they shall, in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the impugned case FIR No. 19/2025 registered with their police station, let him off subject to his furnishing surety and personal bonds to their satisfaction to the tune of Rs. 1 lac each, for the satisfaction of the following conditions:

(a) petitioner shall not cause any threat, undue influence or inducement on any person(s) acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the police or the court;