In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has denied anticipatory bail to Adil Hamid Wani, a petrol pump manager accused of embezzling ₹71.33 lakh from his employer. The court observed that the breach of fiduciary trust by a manager is a grave matter and must not be treated lightly.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while rejecting the bail plea, emphasized:
“The nature of allegations made against the petitioner is serious as he is alleged to have siphoned off more than ₹71 lakh... If the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail, it is definitely going to impact further investigation in an adverse manner.”
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Urges SOP for Online Hearings in Labour Forums to Improve Justice Access
Background
The case began with a complaint by Rubeena Iqbal, proprietor of Lidder Valley Filling Station in Mattan, Anantnag. She had employed the petitioner, Adil Hamid Wani, as the petrol pump manager, entrusting him with full operational control including finances, sales, and record-keeping.
The complaint alleges that Adil used to share financial updates and bank statements via WhatsApp. However, during the financial year-end reconciliation in 2024, serious discrepancies surfaced. While Adil’s records showed ₹1.5 crore in bank and cash, the actual bank balance was only ₹86.25 lakh. Further investigation revealed that the bank statements shared were forged.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Emphasizes Pet Owners' Duty to Prevent Harm from Animals
“The petitioner could not furnish any explanation and also destroyed critical records including day books up to May 2024,” the court noted from the case file.
A Chartered Accountant’s audit confirmed that approximately ₹71.33 lakh was misappropriated. The FIR was filed under Sections 316, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS).
Arguments and Court Findings
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Aswad Attar, argued that the discrepancy was minor and alleged false implication. He also claimed full cooperation during the interim bail period.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Clarifies: Complaint Filed Against CMRL Despite Government's Verbal Assurance
However, the prosecution, supported by Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai and Government Advocate Mr. Ilyas Laway, insisted that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the full extent of the fraud.
Justice Dhar referred to Supreme Court judgments in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reaffirming that economic offences require strict scrutiny and cannot be treated with leniency.
“The offence alleged falls in the category of economic offences... these are serious and custodial interrogation is necessary,” the court stressed.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Quashes Order Stopping Fox Mandal & Associates from Using 'FoxMandal' Trademark
The court highlighted that the gravity of the alleged crime, destruction of records, and the risk of evidence tampering justified denying anticipatory bail.
Further citing Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, Justice Dhar ruled:
“Though bail is generally a rule, anticipatory bail is not. Its grant depends on cautious judicial discretion.”
With the fraud’s total extent still under investigation, the High Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would severely affect recovery efforts and hamper justice.
“The recovery of the amount may not be possible without his arrest and custodial interrogation,” Justice Dhar remarked while dismissing the bail plea.
Case Title: Adil Hamid Wani Vs UT Of J&K
Order Pronounced On: 16 May 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Dhar
FIR No.: 10/2025 – Police Station, Mattan, Anantnag
Petitioner Advocate: Mr. Aswad R. Attar
Respondent Advocates: Mr. Ilyas Laway (GA), Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai (Sr. Adv.), Ms. Mehnaz Rather & Mr. Khursheed Ahmad Dar
