[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bail App No. 366/2025 vs Ut Of J&K on 20 February, 2026
Sr. No. 118 & 119
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Date of pronouncement: 20.02.2026
Date of uploading: 23.02.2026
1. Bail App No. 366/2025
Rahul Sharma ...Applicant
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv.
v.
UT of J&K
....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
2. Bail App No. 374/2025
Kushal Singh ...Applicant
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate
v.
UT of J&K ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
20.02.2026(ORAL)
Bail App No. 366/2025 and Bail App No. 374/2025
01. Since both the applications trace their origin to same FIR No.
135/2025 they are being disposed of by virtue of this common order.
02. Applicants have invoked Section 482 BNSS for their enlargement on
bail in anticipation of arrest, after a similar plea came to be declined
by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur ["the trial Court"].
03. Background facts of the case are that office of the Executive Engineer,
PWD(R&B) Division, Ramnagar e-mailed a complaint to Police
Station, Ramnagar regarding embezzlement of money from official
account of his office. It was alleged that record of various transactions
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
in his office for last 2 years had not been maintained by the account
section. He directed the account section, including the AAO, to update
the account books within one week. One of the account clerks, namely
Akhil Singh, who was actually MTS worker, had deposited a fake
invoice in J&K Bank, Ramnagar by scanning the original invoice,
amounting to Rs. 3,47,000/- and forged the name of payee on it. When
the bank official found it suspicious and enquired about the transaction
from AEE, same was found forged.
04. The initial inquiry transpired that said Akhil had forged the invoice in
the name of one of his relatives and a reverse entry of the amount had
been made in the official account of the complainant Executive
Engineer. Accused Akhil confessed that previously also he had
resorted to same modus operandi i.e., forging the invoices by
replacing the name of payees with the name of somebody else.
05. The complainant formed a Committee headed by AAO and AEEs to
look into the record and assess the amounts embezzled by the culprits
in the previous years and on initial scrutiny, it came to the light that
about one crore amount had been embezzled since the creation of new
division from 16.08.2023. On the receipt of this complaint, FIR for
offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2)
BNS came to be registered. During investigation, the Investigating
Officer seized relevant record from the PWD Department along with
copies of fake invoices, through which, fraudulent transactions were
carried out. Letters were also issued to various banks for details of
bank accounts in which transactions through fake invoices had been
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
made. Statement of the complainant was also recorded. A detailed
inquiry by the complainant-Executive Engineer and later by a
Committee constituted by him and Superintending Engineer revealed
that prime accused Akhil had formed around 70 invoices over two
years, diverting amount of Rs. 1.20 crore to unknown accounts instead
of actual contractors. The Investigating Agency, during investigation,
seized record of PWD(R&B), Ramnagar and found that a large
number of invoices sent to J&K Bank by the Executive Engineer
appears suspicious. Major Accounting irregularities, including non-
maintenance of cash book, absence of Bank Reconciliation
Statements, non-maintenance of the Budget Control Register and non-
submission of complete beneficiary lists under the SAMAGRA
Scheme indicated serious financial mismanagement within the
division. It also surfaced during investigation that several transactions
involving credit of government funds from the official SAMAGRA
PWD(R&B), Division, Ramnagar amount were received into the bank
accounts of accused persons and these amounts were further
transferred into multiple unknown accounts. Accused Anshuwal
Singh, Aryan Sharma, Nitin Abrol, Shreyas, and Vikas Sharma came
to be arrested. Specimen signatures of accused were obtained in the
presence of EMIC, Ramnagar and sent to FSL for expert opinion.
06. As per the Investigating Agency, it was accused Akhil Singh, who
though was appointed as MTS worker, but assigned duties in the
account section as Computer Operator, was found actively involved in
diverting a substantial portion of embezzled amount into bank
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
accounts of his friends and his own brother namely Anshuwal Singh,
who was prime conspirator. Large sums, thereafter, were transferred
back into his personal accounts including two direct transactions
amounting to Rs. 2,64,070/- from the official account of Executive
Engineer. It is alleged that he had channelled these accounts into
multiple unknown accounts and received funds back through
suspicious transactions. It is allegation of the Investigating Agency
that all the accused persons, in furtherance of common criminal
intention, acted to obtain wrongful gain from the government funds by
manipulating official records, preparing fake invoices, executing
fraudulent bank transfers and diverting embezzled amount into
multiple suspicious accounts.
07. Pertinently, allegations against the applicants namely Kushal Singh
and Rahul Sharma are that they were working in Account Section of
the office of PWD (R&B), Ramnagar as Junior Assistants (Bill clerk
/Record keeper and Cashier respectively) and they had not properly
maintained the record. It is also alleged that during the scrutiny of
their bank account statement, it was found that number of indirect
transactions had been received by them from the accounts through
which fake transactions were carried out. According to the
Investigating Agency, on the basis of the evidence collected so far,
offences stand established against all the accused persons.
08. Applicants have approached this Court for their enlargement on bail in
anticipation of arrest, primarily on the ground of false implication.
09. The plea has been opposed on the other side on gravity of the charge.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record,
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and
circumstances attending the present case.
11. Provisions of BNSS, confer discretionary jurisdiction on Courts to
grant bail to accused pending investigation or trial and since this
power is discretionary in nature, it is required to be exercised with
circumspection, by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an
individual and the interest of the society. No doubt, seriousness of a
charge is a relevant consideration, to consider a bail plea, however it
cannot be the only test or the factor to be reckoned because otherwise
it may tantamount to imbalancing the constitutional rights and it is a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that accused is
presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved. Therefore, the
discretionary jurisdiction of a Court in grant or refusal of bail is
regulated by settled principle of law and Courts are obliged to
balance the rights of accused with a need to maintain public
confidence in the justice delivery system.
12. Offences alleged against accused persons are 316(5), 318(4), 336(2),
338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS. Offence under Section 316(5) BNS
regarding forgery of a valuable security is punishable with life
imprisonment or imprisonment upto 10 years.
13. The primary allegation against the applicants is that they, at the
relevant time, were appointed in the Account Section of the office of
the complainant i.e., PWD (R&B), Division Ramnagar, as Junior
Assistants, Bill Clerk/Record keeper and Cashier respectively and that
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
they had not properly maintained the record. There is also allegation
of same indirect transactions in their name from the accounts, through
which, fake transactions were carried out. There is no allegation
against the applicants regarding forgery of a valuable security, will
etc. The said allegation is against the prime accused Akhil Singh, who
is at large and his brother, the main conspirator namely Anshuwal
Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court.
Admitted position of the fact on record is that there are 14 accused
persons in the present case, out of which, 08 co-accused, alleged
beneficiaries have already been enlarged on bail by the trail Court and
there is nothing on the record or in the CD file to indicate that
prosecution has applied for cancellation for their bail. Since 08 alleged
beneficiaries have already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court,
applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail on parity and in the
circumstances, custodial interrogation of applicants shall not serve any
purpose of the investigating agency.
14. Hence, both the applications are allowed and applicants are directed to
be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to their
furnishing of surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac each, and a bond
of personal re-cognizance of the like amount and subject to the
following conditions that:
a. they shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without
prior permission;
2026:JKLHC-JMU:480
b. they shall not jump over bail and tamper with the prosecution
evidence or make an attempt to influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses; and
c. they shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate as
and when called.
15. Disposed of.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
20.02.2026
Sushant
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
