Court cautions against converting pre-trial detention into punishment, relies on Supreme Court precedents on personal liberty
Shivaji Rathore 02-01-2026
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to Jatinder Kumar, a Manager of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, who was arrested in connection with an alleged large-scale loan fraud case being investigated by the Crime Branch, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Jammu. While allowing the bail application, Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani reiterated the settled constitutional principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and cautioned courts against allowing pre-trial detention to assume the character of punitive incarceration.
The bail was granted in a petition arising out of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background of the Case:- The FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Chief Manager, J&K Bank, Jammu, alleging a well-orchestrated conspiracy involving certain individuals, including contractual employees associated with the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP). As per the prosecution, dormant government accounts of Watershed Committees were allegedly reactivated at various branches of J&K Bank by using forged documents and fake salary certificates. These were purportedly used to secure personal loans, car loans, and cash credit facilities, causing wrongful loss to the bank and the public exchequer. The petitioner, Jatinder Kumar, was posted as Manager at the J&K Bank Main Branch, Rajouri in September 2021. His name did not figure in the original FIR and he was implicated during the course of investigation. He was arrested on 19 February 2025, after which his earlier bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu.
Submissions by the Petitioner:- The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and that his role was confined to placing loan applications before the competent authority. He argued that verification of documents and sanction of loans was carried out by other officers. Highlighting that several co-accused had already been granted bail, the petitioner submitted that his continued incarceration amounted to a “pre-trial conviction” and was violative of his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prosecution’s Opposition:- Opposing the bail plea, the Union Territory alleged that the petitioner had misused his official position and facilitated the sanction of fraudulent loans. It was further alleged that he received illegal gratification in cash as well as through bank transactions, with the prosecution claiming that the money trail established his complicity. The prosecution also argued that the offences were serious and non-bailable in nature and that release on bail could result in tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
High Court’s Observations:- After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the High Court noted that the supplementary charge-sheet had already been filed before the trial court. Significantly, 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 further observed that co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail and that there appeared to be no imperative need to keep the petitioner in further custody. It also took note of the fact that the petitioner had remained in custody since February 2025.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:- Reiterating settled principles governing grant of bail, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment 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.”
The Court also placed reliance on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, emphasizing that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, and that imprisonment before conviction carries substantial punitive content.
Referring to Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., the Court observed that although the grant or refusal of bail lies within judicial discretion, such discretion must be exercised “in a judicious manner and in a humane way.”
Bail Granted with Conditions;- 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. The bail was made subject to stringent conditions, including: Regular appearance before the trial court Restriction on foreign travel without prior permission, Non-interference with prosecution witnesses, Disclosure of permanent and temporary address details, Clarifying the limited scope of the order, the Court held that:
“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 directed to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations made in the bail order.
Case Details
Case Title: Jatinder Kumar v. UT of J&K
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Coram: Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani
Date of Decision: 27 December 2025
Bail Application No.: 82/2025
FIR No.: 86/2023, P/S Crime Branch, EOW, Jammu
