SRINAGAR: In a significant judgment linked to the high-profile Jammu and Kashmir Bank insurance deal controversy, the High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash the Anti-Corruption Bureau FIR alleging a quid pro quo arrangement between the former bank chairman and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited involving the appointment of his relative to the insurance company shortly after the bank awarded it a major contract.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition filed by senior officials of the bank, observing that there were “strong incriminating circumstances” indicating a nexus between the insurance contract and the appointment of Asif Manzoor Beigh, a close relative of former JK Bank chairman Parvez Ahmad.
The court reserved judgment on April 23, 2026 and pronounced the verdict on May 15, 2026, in CRM(M) No. 265/2024.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocate ZA Shah along with advocate Roshan Khayal. The Union Territory was represented by senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri assisted by advocates Maha Majeed and Adnan Zahoor, while advocate Numan Zargar appeared for senior advocate Syed Faisal Qadiri, who represented the insurance company.
The case arises out of FIR No 14/2019 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, under provisions of the JK Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B RPC relating to criminal conspiracy.
According to the FIR, the Anti-Corruption Bureau initiated verification into allegations that Jammu and Kashmir Bank entered into an insurance partnership with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited in violation of norms to facilitate the appointment of Asif Manzoor Beigh, identified as the son-in-law of the sister of former chairman Parvez Ahmad Nengroo, in the insurance company.
Investigators alleged that before joining IFFCO Tokio, Beigh was working with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company on an annual package of Rs 8.75 lakh. However, after the insurance agreement between JK Bank and IFFCO Tokio was executed on February 12, 2019, he allegedly resigned from Bajaj Allianz and was appointed by IFFCO Tokio at an annual package of Rs 19.28 lakh.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau alleged this demonstrated a “pre-planned conspiracy” and quid pro quo arrangement between the former bank chairman and senior officials of the insurance company.
The FIR also alleged that the insurance company was favoured during the evaluation process by awarding it higher points during Power Point presentations and that the bank suffered a loss of around Rs 71 lakh in commission earnings during the first quarter of 2019-20 after shifting business to IFFCO Tokio.
The petition challenging the FIR was filed by four former senior officials of the bank, including Pushap Kumar Tickoo, who served as Executive President HRD and Chief Personnel Officer during 2018-19. The petitioners argued that they merely formed part of an evaluation committee assessing bids submitted by insurance companies after the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India regulations permitted banks to engage multiple insurers.
The petitioners contended that the bidding process was transparent, that seven companies had qualified after scrutiny, and that IFFCO Tokio had emerged as the top-ranked bidder with 85.67 points out of 100.
They further argued that the alleged loss calculation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau was “imaginary” because the insurance commission depended on multiple fluctuating variables such as business volume and premium rates.
Senior advocate ZA Shah argued before the court that differences in scoring by expert committees could not by themselves establish criminal conspiracy and maintained that the petitioners had no role in the appointment of Asif Manzoor Beigh.
However, the Anti-Corruption Bureau told the court that the then chairman had directly participated in the evaluation process, thereby compromising the independence of the committee. Investigators alleged that the committee had deliberately awarded higher marks to IFFCO Tokio while downgrading competing firms.
The investigation further revealed that Beigh had initially accepted an annual package of Rs 15.35 lakh after being interviewed on December 17, 2018, but later demanded a higher salary of Rs 20 lakh. The insurance company eventually approved a package of Rs19.28 lakh as a “special case” on February 13, 2019, one day after the execution of the agreement between JK Bank and IFFCO Tokio.
The High Court described these circumstances as deeply suspicious.
“Once the Selection Committee, in its meeting dated 17.12.2018 had decided to offer a package of Rs.15.35 lakhs per annum to Beigh which was accepted by him, the circumstances under which he resiled from the same and demanded a higher package which was accepted by the respondent Insurance Company at its highest level, certainly raises eyebrows,” Justice Dhar observed.
The court further noted that these developments occurred “in close proximity with the dates on which the deal between respondent Insurance Company and the Bank has fructified.”
Justice Dhar held that there were “strong incriminating circumstances” against former chairman Parvez Ahmad Nengroo, Asif Manzoor Beigh and officials of the insurance company.
The court observed: “There is a close nexus between appointment of Asif Manzoor Beigh with respondent No.2 Insurance Company and the award of contract of insurance to the said company.”
At the same time, the court said the precise role of the petitioners, who were members of the bid evaluation committee, still required “deeper probe.”
“There appears to be, prima facie, merit” in the petitioners’ argument that mere allocation of marks by an expert committee could not automatically establish conspiracy, the court said.
Justice Dhar also noted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had not yet meticulously examined whether the presence of the then chairman during Power Point presentations influenced the committee’s decision-making process.
“The facts on this aspect of the matter are still hazy,” the court remarked, while adding that the investigation had made “substantial progress.”
Refusing to interfere at the investigation stage, the High Court relied extensively on Supreme Court precedents including State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure vs State of Maharashtra, reiterating that courts should exercise quashing powers sparingly and should not stifle legitimate investigations at a preliminary stage.
“Scuttling the investigation at this stage would amount to quashing a genuine prosecution, which is impermissible in law,” the court held.
The petition was consequently dismissed, though the High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the court again after filing the final report or seek discharge before the competent trial court if a chargesheet is filed against them.
