Srinagar: That the investigating officer has remained lackadaisical in investigation of the case cannot be a sole ground for release of the accused on bail, a city court ruled Wednesday as it rejected the bail applications of two brothers accused of defrauding gullible citizens by luring them through attractive advertisements to purchase land.
Aadil Mushtaq Ahmad, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Srinagar while rejecting the bail application of brothers — Sheikh Ghulam Jeelani and Sheikh Showkat Ahmad, sons of Sheikh Ghulam Qadir of Malla Bagh, Ellahi Bagh, Srinagar — said it is no one’s case before the court that the complainants have not been duped and defrauded to part with their hard earned money for purchase of land.
“It appears to be a multi-million scam, where honest purchasers have been lured by shiny advertisements to purchase land,” he said.
The accused submitted that their only sin is that they are the sons of Sheikh Ghulam Qadir and have no contact with their father, who is living with his wife separately.
Records indicate that in terms of an order dated 05.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, the accused and their parents after clutching a hefty amount from a considerable number of persons closed their offices, and resorted to cheating and fraud.
Multiple complaints by Ghulam Jeelani Chesti, Mst Tajali, Mst Naireen Iqbal, Mst Bilquis Assad and others allege that they have been duped and defrauded by the bail-seeking Sheikhs and other accused.
The land-owners who were intending to sell their lands to the land-brokers also stated during the investigation against the accused to have been defrauded.
“Mere fact that the aforesaid persons are not the directors or/and have no mention in the Articles of Association of Teramount company will not ipso facto exonerate them from the misdoing done under the banner of aforesaid company, if otherwise they had played role in defrauding the complainants”, said the court.
The allegations against the accused are heinous and need to be investigated properly as public money is involved in the matter, it said.
Magistrate Aadil Mushtaq recorded “merely the investigating officer has remained lackadaisical in investigation of the case, cannot be a sole ground for release of the accused on bail”.
He held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
Socio-economic offences or the white-collar crimes, according to the court, are conceived out of sheer covetousness, ravenousness, or whims and are smooth and non-violent in character. The shortfall of terribleness, power or viciousness gives the overall population a feeling that these violations are of lesser gravity as compared to the other societal crimes like murder or assault.
It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned. Liberty is to be secured through the process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused, the victim and the society at large, it added.
It said that there are other cases of similar nature pending against present applicants (Sheikhs) and other accused and that too is a considering factor for the court to refuse the discretion against the applicants.
The general public, it noted, will lose its confidence which it has reposed in the court of law. The offence has been committed against the State and society. While applying the aforesaid settled principles for grant of bail to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the accused does not deserve bail at this stage.
The court concluded that an attempt has been made to deceive people and distort the faith of the public in the criminal justice system which otherwise prompts me to refuse to exercise discretion for granting bail in favour of the accused.
