Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Aamir Bashir Magray & Ors vs Ut Of J&K on 18 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 08.07.2025
Pronounced on: 18.07.2025
CRM(M) No.279/2025
CrlM No.651/2025
CrlM No.652/2025
c/w
Bail App No.88/2025
AAMIR BASHIR MAGRAY & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate, with
Mr. Aabid Hamid, Advocate. (in CRM(M) No.279/2025))
Mr. Areeb Kawoosa, Advocate (In Bail App No.88/2025)
Mr. Gagan Oswal, Advocate, through VC (in Bail App No.88/2025)
Vs.
UT OF J&K ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- Mr. Waseem Gul, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) By this common judgment, the above numbered two
petitions, one challenging order dated 21.05.2025 passed
by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal,
rejecting bail application of the petitioners with a prayer for
grant of bail and other seeking bail in a case arising out of
FIR No.28/2025 for offences under Section 318(4) of BNS
registered with Police Station, Kangan, are proposed to be
disposed of.
2) As per the prosecution case, on 13.04.2025, an
application came to be presented by one Firdous Ahmad
Dar with Police Station, Kangan, alleging therein that he
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 1 of 18
was approached by accused/petitioner Shahnawaz Ahmad
Shah, who is working in the J&K Bank, Kangan, as
Probationary Officer, and he lured him to invest in a
financial scheme by promising high returns through online
trading @RSN. The complainant Firdous Ahmad Dar is
stated to have shared his Aadhar, PAN and bank account
credentials with him whereafter the accused/petitioner
Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah started using his bank account
for suspicious financial transactions. It was further alleged
that the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs
from his bank account to the bank account of Shri Ghulam
Nabi Shah, the father of petitioner Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah
on the promise of immediate monetary returns but no such
returns were provided to the complainant. It was also
alleged that the bank account of the complainant was
flagged by the bank authorities and a lien was marked on
it due to involvement in suspicious transactions. It was
further alleged by the complainant that he had come to
know that sister of petitioner Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah,
petitioner Rumaisa Jan and her fiancé, petitioner Dr. Aamir
Bashir Magray, were also involved in these dishonest
activities and that they were deceiving several locals by
guaranteeing huge returns through fake online trade
platforms.
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 2 of 18
3) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR
No.28/2025 for offences under Section 318(4) of BNS was
registered and investigation was started during which
statements of several witnesses under Section 180 and 183
of BNSS were recorded. The Investigating Agency also
scrutinized bank accounts of accused persons. The
accused/petitioners were arrested on 13.04.2025 and their
mobile phones and other documents found in their
possession were seized. During the course of investigation,
correspondence was made with several banks and account
details of the accused/petitioners were sought from J&K
Bank, Kangan, SBI Kangan, HDFC Kangan, PNB Kangan,
and Indus Ind Bank, Srinagar, and it transpired that huge
credit/debit transactions worth approximately 53 crores
had taken place from the bank accounts of the petitioners/
accused. According to the Investigating Agency, the
petitioners could not give any satisfactory explanation/ clue
regarding these huge banking transactions.
4) The respondent Investigating Agency has, in its report,
given details of the transactions that have taken place in
the bank accounts pertaining to the petitioners/accused. It
has been claimed that a total amount of Rs.4,15,29,412/
has been credited into the account of petitioner/accused
Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah, a total amount of
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 3 of 18
Rs.22,31,38,970/ has been credited into the account of
petitioner/accused Rumaisa Jan, a total amount of
Rs.26,43,3,842/ has been credited to the account of
petitioner/accused Aamir Bashir Magray and a sum of
Rs.24,10,69,825/ has been credited into the account of
petitioner/accused Ghulam Nabi Shah.
5) According to the Investigating Agency, the petitioners
have lured poor and young people into cyber fraud
promising them double returns and they have deceived a
large number of people. It has been submitted that the
investigation is going on so as to determine the source of
these funds. It has been submitted that during
investigation, it was found that accused Aamir Bashir
Magray has been engaged with accused Rumaisa Jan and
accused Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah is working as
Probationary Officer at J&K Bank, Branch Kangan.
According to the prosecution, a fake online trading platform
@RSN website has been set up by the accused which is not
registered or approved by the Government and FIR
No.05/2025 for offences under Section 66-D IT Act, 3(5),
61(1), 111(2), 319(2) of BNS stands registered against
accused/ petitioners Aamir Bashir Magray, Shahnawaz
Ahmad Shah and Rumaisa Jan with Cyber Police Station,
Srinagar, and the investigation in the said case is
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 4 of 18
underway. It has been submitted that custody of the
petitioners/accused was transferred to Cyber Police
Station, Srinagar, on 01.05.2025.
6) It has been submitted by the respondent Investigating
Agency that during investigation of the present case, after
obtaining search warrants, the house of the accused
Ghulam Nabi Shah was subjected to search. During
investigation, it was found that brother of accused
Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah, Shri Owais Ahmad Shah, who is
currently pursuing his MBBS course in Bangladesh is also
involved in the case. It has also been established during
investigation of the case that petitioner/accused Aamir
Bashir Magray has purchased 02 kanals of land for an
amount of Rs.2.5 crores in the year 2023-24. It has been
further submitted that during investigation of the case it
was found that there were significant financial transactions
between the petitioners/ accused inter se. It has been
submitted that the accused persons have been found to be
in possession of a large number of bank accounts,
debit/credit cards, the details whereof have been given in
the report.
7) According to the prosecution, the petitioners are
involved in serious and grave economic offences and their
activities show a systematic and organized criminal
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 5 of 18
conspiracy wherein several individuals including bank
officials have misused their official positions to lure victims
with false promise of high returns. It has been submitted
that because the petitioners are involved in FIR No.5/2025
registered by Cyber Police Station, Srinagar, for similar
offences, as such, Section 111 of BNS has been invoked
against them in the present case. It has been submitted
that the Income Tax Department has also been informed
regarding huge online banking transactions in which the
petitioners have indulged and the provisions contained in
Section 4 of PMLA are also to be invoked and the
investigation is stated to be still going on.
8) It seems that the petitioners had approached the
Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, for
grant of bail but their bail application has been rejected by
the said Court in terms of order dated 21.05.2025, which is
under challenge in CRM(M) No.279/2025. It also appears
that the petitioners have been enlarged on bail in FIR
No.5/2025 registered with Cyber Police Station, Srinagar,
on 17.05.2025, whereafter their custody has been shifted
to the present case.
9) The petitioners have sought bail in the aforesaid FIR
on the grounds that the offence under Section 4 of PMLA
has not been added as yet by the Investigating Agency but
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 6 of 18
the learned Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, has merely on the
basis of apprehension that the provision of Section 4 of
PMLA may be invoked in the present case, rejected the bail
application of the petitioners. It has been further contended
that the respondent Investigating Agency has invoked
Section 111 of BNS, which pertains to organized crime
without there being any basis for the same, simply with a
view to deny the concession of bail to the petitioners. It has
been further submitted that even the provisions contained
in Section 318(4) of BNS are not attracted to the present
case as there is no allegation that the petitioners/accused
have forged any valuable security. It has also been
contended that petitioner Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah is
undergoing treatment for cancer whereas petitioner
Rumaisa Jan is also on medication. It has been further
averred that petitioner, Ghulam Nabi Shah is an old aged
person and on these grounds it has been submitted that
they are entitled to bail even on humanitarian grounds.
10) The respondent Investigating Agency has opposed the
prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail, primarily, on the
ground that the petitioners/accused are involved in a huge
financial scandal and that they have deceived and duped
thousands of people by committing fraud upon them. It has
been contended that during investigation of the case, it has
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 7 of 18
been found that transactions worth more than 53 crores
have taken place from the bank accounts of the
petitioners/accused and the investigation of the case is still
in progress to unearth the magnitude of fraud. It has also
been contended that grant of bail to the petitioners at this
stage would hamper the investigation as some of the
associates of the petitioners are still at large.
11) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including the Case Diary.
12) Although the petitioners have sought bail on the
grounds as enumerated hereinabove, yet, during the course
of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners have laid emphasis on the ground that
irrespective of the merits of the case, the petitioners are
entitled to default bail because they have been in custody
in the present case for more than sixty days. It has been
submitted that the offence under Section 4 of PMLA has not
been invoked against the petitioners as yet whereas offence
under Section 111 of BNS is not attracted to the facts of the
present case and the same has been invoked by the
Investigating Agency only to deny default bail to the
petitioners.
13) In the above context, if we have a look at the Case
Diary produced by the respondents, it is revealed that the
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 8 of 18
petitioners were arrested in the present case on 13.04.2025
and on 01.05.2025, their custody was transferred from the
present case to FIR No.5/2025 registered with Cyber Police
Station, Srinagar. It is also an admitted fact that the
petitioners were granted bail in FIR No.5/2025 by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on 17.05.2025, whereafter
their custody was shifted to present FIR. As on today, the
petitioners have spent around 75 days in custody in the
present case.
14) As per the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of
Section 187 of BNSS, a Magistrate can authorize detention
of an accused person beyond the period of fifteen days for
a total period not exceeding ninety days, where the
investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten
years or more and where the investigation relates to any
other offence, the detention cannot be authorized for a
period exceeding sixty days. It further provides that on
expiry of the said period of ninety days or sixty days, the
accused has to be released on bail if he is prepared to and
does furnish bail.
15) In the present case, initially the FIR was registered for
offences under Section 318(4) of BNS. The said offence is
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 9 of 18
punishable with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years and to fine. So, the
maximum period for which a person accused of an offence
under Section 318 of BNS can be detained in custody is
sixty days. During the course of investigation of the case,
the respondent Investigating Agency has invoked offences
under Section 316(5), 111, 3(5), 61(1) of BNS and Section
66-D of IT Act. All these offences except the offences under
Section 111 and 316(5) of BNS carry punishment of less
than ten years of imprisonment. The offence under Section
111 of BNS carries punishment which may extend to
imprisonment for life. Similarly, offence under Section
316(5) of BNS also carries maximum punishment of
imprisonment for life. Thus, if it is shown from the material
on record of the Case Diary that the petitioners are not
involved in offence under Section 111 of BNS or offence
under Section 316(5) of BNS, they can claim default bail in
terms of sub-section (3) of Section 187 of BNSS on the
ground that they have spent more than sixty days in
custody in the present FIR.
16) So far as offence under Section 111 of BNS is
concerned, it defines and prescribes punishment for offence
of organized crime. According to this provision, any
continuing unlawful activity, which includes economic
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 10 of 18
offence, by any person or a group of persons acting in
concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an
organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate by
use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion or
by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect
material benefit including a financial benefit, constitutes
organized crime. Explanation (ii) defines ‘continuing
unlawful activity’ as an activity prohibited by law which is
a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of
three years or more, undertaken by any person either singly
or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or
on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than
one chargesheets have been filed before a competent court
within the preceding period of ten years and that court has
taken cognizance of such offence and includes economic
offence.
17) Thus, for bringing an activity of an accused within the
definition of ‘organized crime’ it has to be shown that such
person has indulged in continuing unlawful activity which
may include, inter alia, an economic offence. It is also to be
shown that the concerned person must have been charge
sheeted before a court of competent jurisdiction in respect
of such unlawful activity more than once in preceding ten
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 11 of 18
years and the court should have taken cognizance of such
offence.
18) In the present case, the basis on which the
investigating agency has invoked Section 111 of BNS is that
the petitioners have been booked in FIR No.5/2025 of Cyber
Police Station, Srinagar. There is nothing on record and not
even an allegation emanating from the investigating agency
that any chargesheet has ever been filed against the
petitioners in respect of any unlawful activity including an
economic offence in the previous past nor there is any
assertion that any court has taken cognizance of such
offence against the petitioners. Therefore, invocation of
Section 111 of BNS against the petitioners by the
Investigating Agency does not have any basis at all, at least
upto the present stage of investigation.
19) That takes us to the question as to whether the offence
under Section 316(5) of the BNS is made out against the
petitioners. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner
Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah is working as a Probationary
Officer in J&K Bank Branch Kangan and in that capacity,
he induced one Firdous Ahmad Dar to provide him bank
account credentials and he also induced him to transfer
Rs.5.00 lacs from his bank account, whereafter he used his
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 12 of 18
bank account for suspicious financial transactions. There
is material on record to suggest that there have been huge
financial transactions in the bank accounts of the
petitioners and credits to the extent of more than Rs.53
crores have been made in their bank accounts. There is
material on record to show that there have been
transactions, inter se, in the bank accounts maintained by
the petitioners.
20) Section 316 of BNS provides for punishment in
respect of offence of criminal breach of trust committed by,
inter alia, a public servant or as a banker. Petitioner
Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah, who was working as a
Probationary Officer in the J&K Bank, has committed
criminal breach of trust reposed on him by complainant
Firdous Ahmad Dar who was maintaining a bank account
in the bank where petitioner Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah was
working by using his account credentials for suspicious
financial transactions. Thus, prima facie, petitioner
Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah is involved in the commission of
offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under
Section 316(5) of the BNS and because there are inter se
banking transactions between petitioner Shahnawaz
Ahmad Shah and the other petitioners, there is material on
record to show that all the petitioners were working in
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 13 of 18
concert and were part of the conspiracy. Therefore, there is
prima facie material on record to show that the petitioners
are involved in commission of offence under Section 316(5)
of BNS read with Section 61 BNS. Thus, it cannot be stated
that the Investigating Agency has erroneously invoked the
provisions of Section 316(5) read with Section 61 of BNS
against the petitioners.
21) Since the offence under Section 316(5) of BNS carries
maximum punishment of imprisonment for life, as such,
the provisions of default bail in the case of petitioners would
not come into play and the same would get attracted only if
the petitioners remain in custody beyond ninety days
without filing of the charge sheet against them. Since the
period of ninety days is yet to expire, as such, the
contention of the petitioners in this regard is not tenable.
22) That takes us to the merits of the prayer regarding
grant of bail. As already indicated hereinabove, there is
prima face material on record to show that the petitioners
are involved in suspicious financial transactions and as per
the prosecution case, there have been transactions of more
than Rs.53 crores in the bank accounts of the petitioners
in the recent past. The statements of as many as 13
witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Agency
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 14 of 18
during investigation of the case, in which they have
confirmed the fact that they have been duped by the
petitioners at different times by luring them to engage in
online investments. As per case of the Investigating Agency,
there are thousands of other victims whose statements are
yet to be recorded and the investigation in this regard is still
in progress. Therefore, not only the investigation of the case
is still in progress but the material on record collected by
the Investigating Agency so far points towards a huge
financial/cyber fraud that was being perpetrated by the
petitioners in concert with other.
23) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon
the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender
Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, Sanjay Chandra
vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, and State through CBI vs.
Amarmani Tripathi (AIR 2005 SC 3490), has contended
that merely because the petitioners are involved in an
economic offence does not disentitle them to grant of bail.
24) It is true that only because the petitioners are involved
in an economic offence does not disentitle them to grant of
bail but in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, it has been held that
economic offences fall under the category of ‘grave offence’
and in such circumstances while considering the
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 15 of 18
application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to
deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of
allegations made against the accused. It has been further
observed that such consideration with regard to gravity of
offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or
the tripod test that would be normally applied but as a rule,
bail cannot be denied in every case of economic offence as
no such bar is created in the relevant enactment. The
Supreme Court further held that ultimately the
consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the
facts involved therein and securing the presence of the
accused to stand trial.
25) In the instant case, as already stated, the investigation
of the case is still in progress and is nowhere near
completion. The allegations against the petitioners are
serious in nature. Therefore, it is not a case where the
petitioners despite being involved in a grave can be enlarged
on bail at this stage even though there is no statutory bar
in granting such relief in their favour.
26) During the course of arguments, it has also been
contended that the petitioners have not been furnished the
grounds of arrest at the time of their arrest, as such, they
are entitled to bail in view of the law laid down by the
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 16 of 18
Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi), AIR 2024 SC 2967.
27) In the above context, it is to be noted that neither in
the bail application nor in the petition under Section 528 of
BNSS, the petitioners have pleaded that they were not
furnished with the grounds of arrest. They have not
challenged their arrest nor have they challenged orders of
remand passed by the learned Magistrate from time to time.
Unless the petitioners/accused specifically allege that the
grounds of arrest were not furnished to them, the burden
of proving the same would not shift to the Investigating
Agency. There is no pleading to this effect in either of the
two petitions. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to
urge these contentions without laying any basis for the
same.
28) So far as the contention of the petitioners Shahnawaz
Ahmad Shah and Rumaisa Jan that they are entitled to bail
on medical grounds is concerned, the same is also without
any basis. The medical record annexed to the bail
application reveals that petitioner Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah
has been suffering from non-metastatic osteosarcoma of left
femur since the year 2006. There is nothing on record to
show that his condition has deteriorated over the years.
Similarly, medical record in respect of petitioner Rumaisa
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
Bail App No.88/2025 Page 17 of 18
Jan does not suggest that she is suffering from any serious
ailment. Therefore, they are not entitled to bail on medical
grounds as well.
29) For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are not
entitled to bail at this stage. I do not find any merit in these
petitions, as such, the same are dismissed along with
connected CrlM(s).
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar,
18.07.2025
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM(M) No.279/2025 c/w
18.07.2025 22:30 Bail App No.88/2025 Page 18 of 18
[ad_1]
Source link