1 S. No. 17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App No.149/2025 NUSRAT …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. I. Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveed Gul, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, AAG with Ms. Nadia Abdullah, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 12.08.2025 (ORAL) 1. The petitioner in the instant petition seeks bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No.14/2025 registered with Economic Offence Wing of Police Station Crime Branch, Srinagar for commission of offences under Sections 167, 420 and 120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, SVT.2006. 2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that Economic Offences Wing Srinagar (Crime Branch) (for short ‘the EOW’) received a written complaint from one Dilafroz Buch W/o M.H.Makhdoomi R/o Wanbal Rawalpora, Srinagar, stating therein that she-the complainant purchased 5 kanals and 4 marlas of land in the year 2012 at Balhama Srinagar from one Mohd Shafi Lone @ Shafi Cheeni S/o Ab. Ahad Lone R/o Peerbagh Srinagar and in this regard executed 03 sale deeds on 13.08.2012, 03.09.2012 and 31.07.2012, while stating further that in lieu of the purchase of said land, she, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.88,40,000/- through bank transactions to the seller and also provided 02 kanals of land situated at Goripora Rawalpora, Srinagar, in exchange thereof, and that the said sale deeds latter came to be taken back by the said Mohd Shafi Lone for up-dation of records, however, upon return of the said sale deeds, insertions were found to have been made therein the said sale deeds by changing the 2 Khasra numbers of the land in question and that though the land in question was under her possession after its purchase, however, on 26.01.2022 one Khursheed Muzaffar S/o Khalid Muzaffar R/o Tulsibagh forcibly occupied 2 kanals and 10 marlas out of the said land who contended that the same stands purchased by him from one Riyaz Ahmad Bhat S/o Gh. Mohd Bhat R/o Nowgam Srinagar. Mohd Bhat R/o Nowgam Srinagar. The said complaint upon being received by the EOW was inquired into revealing that the insertions have had been made in the survey numbers of the sale deeds in question by the accused persons in connivance with the concerned revenue officials/officers in order to deceive the complainant and that it also got revealed that false mutation bearing No.2163/1 had been inserted in revenue records between mutation Nos.2163 and 2164 by the then Tehsildar namely Nusrat Aziz and Patwari namely Ashiq Ali in order to confer undue benefit upon the above named Riyaz Ahmad Bhat who had sold the land of the complainant unauthorizedly and that consequently FIR No.14/2025 under Sections 167, 420 and 120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 2006, came to be registered and investigation set into motion and during investigation statement of the complainant was recorded and M.E. file no.126/2022 came to be seized besides conducting searches of the houses of accused persons including the Tehsildar concerned and during said searches certain documents having bearing upon the case came to be seized including the passport of the Tehsildar concerned and it transpired that a deliberate and well planned and orchestrated criminal conspiracy had been hatched by the accused persons including the Tehsildar Nusrat Aziz for facilitating and legalizing the fraudulent mutations of the land in question, besides tampering with the documents. 3. 3. The petitioner herein while maintaining the instant petition has averred that she has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question and that the said implication is in fact is the outcome of an explanation sought by her from one Dy.SP while the petitioner was posted at Bajbhera as Tehsildar and that the said Dy.SP is instrumental in getting the petitioner involved in the FIR in question in order to damage her clean image and obstruct her elevation in service career 3 and that owing to her implication in FIR in question on false grounds, the petitioner has apprehension of her arrest therein the FIR in question and that although an application earlier came to be filed by her for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest before the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption on 18.07.2025, the said application came to be dismissed on 25.07.2025 although the petitioner was initially admitted to an interim bail on 19.07.2025, and that the dismissal of the said bail application by the court below was ordered in hot-haste without application of mind inasmuch as against the settled principles of law and that the petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor is involved in the FIR in question and in fact has been serving the revenue Department for the last more than 25 years and has earned number of appreciations /awards and has a good family background and being a lady of middle age also suffers from diabetes and is thus, entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail subject to the conditions those may be imposed. 4. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein the petition is being opposed on the same premises that the investigation conducted in the FIR so far revealed a deliberate, well planned and orchestrated criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including the petitioner herein who by using official position facilitated and legalized fraudulent mutations that too without any jurisdiction inasmuch as while not being posted therein the concerned Tehsil, thus constituting criminal misconduct by the petitioner being a public servant as well, and therefore, not deserving the concession of anticipatory bail. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Before proceeding to advert to the petition in hand, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject of anticipatory bail and issues connected thereto in the first instance. 4 The Apex Court in case titled as “Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Antia Agarwal” reported in 2020 SCC online SC 1031, has noticed, observed and laid down at para 92.1 and 92.2 as under: - "92.1.... The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. 92.3.... 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. Further the Apex Court in case titled as “Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr”., reported in 2018(12) SCC 129 has held following at para 15: - 15.”As held in Puran case (2001(6) SCC 338, ], while considering the question of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of details of evidence as it is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. We, therefore, consciously refrain from considering the merits of the materials/evidence collected by the prosecution.” 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to case in hand, the fundamental ground urged by the petitioner for seeking anticipatory bail in the instant petition is that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question on baseless and unfounded grounds in particular owing an explanation earlier having been sought by the petitioner from a Dy.SP while being posted as Tehsildar Bijbhera. However, a general contention of such nature by the petitioner qua her innocence can neither at this stage be taken to be as a gospel truth nor can it be said at this stage that the case foisted against the petitioner herein covered in the FIR in question is totally false as an in depth analysis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency so far in order to ascertain the probability of the conviction of the petitioner cannot be gone into at 5 this stage, in that, same in law is not permissible by a court while considering the matter for grant of bail. Besides, perusal of the record available on the file suggests that the investigation in the matter is yet in progress requiring it to be left open for the investigating agency and to be given a free hand to investigate the matter from all angles. 7. Viewed thus, having regard to the nature of accusation, the gravity of offence, the petitioner is alleged to be involved as also the punishment of said offence carry, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein at this stage is not entitled to the concession of bail in anticipation of arrest. 8. Resultantly the petition fails and is dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.08.2025 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether approved for reporting ? Yes