Kangan, March 17: The Court of Civil judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kangan, presided over by Moonis Wahid, rejected the bail applications of Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah, Rumaisa Jan and Dr. Amir Bashir Magray in FIR No. 28/2025 registered at Police Station Kangan, presently under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch Kashmir.
The accused are facing charges under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with an organised cyber financial fraud allegedly exceeding ₹51 crore. Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah is a J&K Bank employee.
During the hearing, the prosecution was represented by APP Alyas Khawaja, who opposed the bail applications on the grounds of gravity and magnitude of the offence, examination of prosecution witnesses, the ongoing investigation and the fact that one co-accused is absconding while supplementary charge sheet is yet to be filed.
Investigation has revealed multiple bank accounts linked with the accused, which were lien marked on complaints from cyber police units across different states, besides thousands of UPI transactions indicating a systematic online fraud affecting numerous victims.
While rejecting bail, the court observed that economic offences of such magnitude have serious societal repercussions and require a strict approach. The court further emphasised that societal interest must prevail over individual liberty in cases of organised financial fraud affecting a large number of victims. The court also remarked that the growing menace of online trading and gaming related frauds is creating serious social harm and that such addiction driven schemes operate in a manner comparable to drug addiction.
The court also took note that one co accused is absconding outside the country, further investigation regarding financial transactions and bank accounts is continuing and a supplementary charge sheet is yet to be filed.
Considering the gravity and magnitude of the fraud, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the likelihood that release of the accused may lead to dissipation of properties in which the alleged proceeds of crime have been invested, the court held that the accused were not entitled to bail at this stage.
