news details |
|
|
| Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of posing as RAW officer | | Rs 1.22 Cr Extortion Case | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 19: A Srinagar court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a man accused of impersonating a Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) officer and allegedly extorting Rs 1.22 crore from a Government official by threatening him with arrest and dismissal from service on the pretext of fabricated complaints before the Lieutenant Governor’s office and investigating agencies.
Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, Farooq Ahmad Bhat, dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Shafeeq Ahmad Moona, son of Ghulam Mohammad Moona, resident of Noorbagh, Sopore, in connection with FIR No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station Special Crime Wing (SCW), Crime Branch Kashmir, under Sections 204, 318(4), 319(2), 308(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the police report submitted before the Court, the case originated from a complaint lodged by Tariq Hussain Shams, an Assistant Town Planner with the Srinagar Development Authority, who alleged that several individuals conspired to extort money from him by falsely claiming to have influential connections with senior Government officials.
The complainant alleged that he was initially introduced to Babik Manzoor Beigh, who subsequently introduced him to Shafeeq Ahmad Moona, also known as Shafi alias Shahid, who allegedly projected himself as a RAW officer having close connections with the Lieutenant Governor’s office and other VVIPs.
The complainant was allegedly informed that serious complaints were pending against him before the LG’s office, Crime Branch and Anti-Corruption Bureau, which could result in his arrest and dismissal from service.
Another accused, identified as Bilal, allegedly posed as a former Deputy Commissioner and claimed to have connections with senior administrative officials.
According to investigators, the accused initially demanded Rs 5 crore for settling the purported complaints, which was subsequently reduced to Rs 1.20 crore. The complainant allegedly paid approximately Rs 1.22 crore after arranging money through bank loans, personal borrowings and the sale of family jewellery.
During the hearing, Advocate Feroz Parray, appearing for the petitioner, sought anticipatory bail, contending that his client had been falsely implicated and was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
The prosecution, however, opposed the relief, stressing the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation to recover relevant evidence and establish the roles of other persons allegedly involved in the conspiracy.
After examining the police report and rival submissions, the Court observed that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief intended to protect individuals against arbitrary arrest and humiliation, but cannot be used to obstruct the investigation of serious cognizable offences.
The Court held that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring thorough investigation, particularly in view of the alleged impersonation of intelligence and administrative officials and the substantial amount involved.
The Court further observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the roles of the accused persons, trace relevant evidence and determine whether additional individuals were involved in the alleged conspiracy.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments governing anticipatory bail, the Court emphasised that the gravity of accusations, the stage of investigation and the possibility of interference with evidence are important considerations while deciding pre-arrest bail applications.
The Court observed that granting anticipatory bail at this crucial stage could impede a free and fair investigation, particularly when substantial investigative steps remained pending.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and ordered that any interim protection granted to the petitioner shall stand vacated forthwith.
The Court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not influence the merits of the case during trial.
The investigating agency was directed to proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
