J&K High Court Grants Bail in Wild Garlic Fraud Case, Doubts Section 111 BNS Charge on Twenty-Year-Old FIR

Justice Sanjay Dhar admitted Mohammad Iqbal Wani to bail in a Rs 55.80 lakh wild garlic fraud, finding prima facie merit in his challenge to the organised crime charge under Section 111 BNS, while holding that a charge sheet filed over twenty years ago cannot constitute “continued unlawful activity” within the ten-year window the provision requires.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has granted bail to Mohammad Iqbal Wani, one of three accused persons facing trial for an alleged Rs 55.80 lakh fraud involving the sale of wild garlic. Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, allowed Bail App No.05/2026 on 30 April 2026, after finding that the petitioner had spent more than eight months in custody, the charge sheet against him was already filed, and his challenge to the Section 111 BNS organised crime charge was prima facie meritorious. The court held that a charge sheet arising from an FIR registered in 2005 — more than twenty years before the present proceedings — could not satisfy the ten-year look-back period that Section 111 BNS requires to establish continued unlawful activity.

The Fraud Alleged Against the Accused

On 13 June 2025, Police Station Anantnag received a written complaint from one Tilak Raj, who described himself as the husband of Sapna Devi, the licence holder of NTPF Forest Division, Kishtwar, for trade in herbal material. Tilak Raj alleged that in September 2024, the petitioner Mohammad Iqbal Wani, along with co-accused Tasaduq Hussain Dar and Mujeeb Ahmad Koka, entered into an agreement with Sapna Devi to sell wild garlic. An advance of Rs 1,78,000 was paid against a promise to deliver the material within two days.

The material was never delivered. Instead, the accused demanded additional payment. The complainant ultimately paid a total of Rs 55.80 lakhs — Rs 34,16,995 through bank transfers into the accounts of the accused, and the remainder in cash. A handwritten receipt for Rs 13,50,000 signed by accused Tasaduq Hussain Dar was produced by the complainant, and the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the receipt had been executed by him.

Investigation revealed that the accused persons held no licence or permission from the Forest Department to procure or sell wild garlic, a fact confirmed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Anantnag. The Investigating Agency alleged that the accused had deliberately floated multiple firms under different names as a pre-planned modus operandi to defraud people by inducing investment on the pretext of sale and purchase of land, precious stones, forest produce, and other commodities. Call detail records showed frequent contact among all three accused, and inter-se bank transactions worth crores of rupees were found among their linked accounts.

The petitioner was arrested on 7 August 2025. FIR No.126/2025 was registered for offences under Section 318(4) and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During investigation, Sections 61 and 111 of BNS were also invoked, the latter carrying a minimum sentence of three to five years and a maximum of life imprisonment. The charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, though investigation into the involvement of other persons was stated to be continuing.

The trial court rejected the petitioner's bail application on 24 September 2025, at a stage when investigation was still ongoing and the charge sheet had not yet been filed. By order dated 31 March 2026, the trial court framed charges under Sections 61(2)(a), 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 111(7), 318(3)(4), and 351(2)(3) of BNS against the petitioner and co-accused, and the trial commenced.

The Section 111 BNS Dispute: What the Ten-Year Rule Requires

The central legal contest before Justice Dhar was whether the ingredients of Section 111 BNS — which deals with organised crime — were made out against the petitioner at all.

Section 111 BNS requires, as a predicate, that the accused be involved in “continued unlawful activity.” Explanation II to sub-section (1) of Section 111 defines this as activity in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years.

The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the prosecution relied on two prior charge sheets. The first arose from FIR No.16/2020 of Police Station Achabal, with the charge sheet filed before the competent court on 16 September 2023. The second arose from FIR No.24/2005 for an offence under Section 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code, registered with Police Station M.R. Ganj, Srinagar, with the charge sheet filed on 25 March 2005 before the City Magistrate, Srinagar.

The argument was straightforward: the 2005 charge sheet was filed more than twenty years ago, well outside the ten-year window. If that charge sheet is excluded, only one prior charge sheet remains, which is insufficient to constitute continued unlawful activity under the statutory definition. The trial court had framed the Section 111 charge despite this, and the co-accused had separately challenged that framing order through quashing petitions pending before the High Court.

Justice Dhar declined to express a final opinion on whether Section 111 BNS was correctly invoked, noting that the issue was already the subject of those quashing petitions. However, the court recorded that the petitioner's contention was “prima facie full of merit,” and took it into account for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application.

How the Court Reasoned on Bail

Justice Dhar set out the standard factors a court must weigh when considering bail: the nature and severity of the alleged offence; the risk of witness tampering; the likelihood of the accused absconding; the accused's antecedents; whether the ingredients of the offence are prima facie made out; and the interests of the public or State. The court drew these principles from a line of Supreme Court decisions including Prahlad Singh Bhatti v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 9 SCC 280; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598; State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterji, (2010) 14 SCC 496; Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; and P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 791.

On the Investigating Agency's argument that the petitioner was involved in an economic offence of large magnitude, the court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, which held that all economic offences cannot be lumped together and bail denied on that basis alone. Gravity, the object of the relevant statute, and attending circumstances must each be weighed on the facts of the individual case.

The court then addressed the life imprisonment exposure under Section 111 BNS directly. It held that the mere fact that a charge carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment does not, by itself, disentitle an accused from bail, particularly once the charge sheet has been filed and the accused has spent a significant period in custody. Justice Dhar invoked the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” placing reliance on Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945.

The petitioner had been in custody for more than eight months. The charge sheet against him had already been filed. The court found that denying bail in these circumstances would amount to pre-trial punishment and would militate against the settled rule-and-exception framework.

On the Investigating Agency's submission that further investigation was still in progress, Justice Dhar drew a distinction: the continuing investigation related to the involvement of other accused persons, not to the petitioner's own role. Since investigation into the petitioner's conduct was complete, the pendency of further investigation could not be a ground to keep him in custody.

Outcome

Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed Bail App No.05/2026 and admitted Mohammad Iqbal Wani to bail subject to the following conditions:

• He shall furnish a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh) with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag.
• He shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing until conclusion of the trial.
• He shall not leave the territorial limits of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court.
• He shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.

The court clarified that all observations in the order are confined to the bail application and shall not be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The judgment was marked as speaking and reportable.