Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 12: The Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Dar in connection with an alleged Rs 93-lakh land fraud case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch Kashmir, observing that repeated non-cooperation with the investigating agency, concealment of material facts and the gravity of allegations disentitled him from discretionary relief.
First Additional Sessions Judge Anjum Ara, while allowing the prosecution's application seeking cancellation of interim bail, held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The case pertains to FIR No. 17/2026 registered at Police Station EOW, Srinagar, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the accused, in alleged connivance with co-accused Som Nath Koul, induced complainant Arif Bashir to part with approximately Rs 93 lakh in connection with a proposed sale of migrant property measuring five kanals at Drusu, Pulwama, and standing trees at Bijbehara.
During the investigation, police allegedly recovered identity documents bearing different particulars, powers of attorney, revenue records and other documents from the accused's residence.
Advocate Tawheed Mir and associates, appearing for the applicant, submitted that their client was merely an attesting witness to the agreement and had no financial or proprietary interest in the disputed transaction.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor Waseem Ahmad Shah opposed the application, submitting that the accused had repeatedly failed to cooperate with the investigation despite obtaining interim protection from different courts.
The Court observed that the applicant had approached multiple courts seeking anticipatory bail while concealing material particulars concerning earlier proceedings and criminal antecedents.
It further observed that the requirement of custodial interrogation could not be brushed aside merely because certain documents had already been seized.
Rejecting the bail application, the Court cancelled the interim protection granted on August 5, 2026, and permitted the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that the order would not prejudice the applicant's right to seek regular bail before the competent court, if permissible under law. |
