SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed the bail pleas of four individuals accused in a multi-crore cyber fraud case, observing that the gravity of allegations, the scale of the financial transactions, and the ongoing nature of the investigation did not justify their release at this stage.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while pronouncing the judgment on 18 July 2025, rejected the petitions filed by Dr Aamir Bashir Magray, Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah, Rumaisa Jan, and Ghulam Nabi Shah, who had sought bail in connection with FIR No.28/2025 registered at Police Station Kangan under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and related provisions.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Firdous Ahmad Dar, who alleged that Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah, a probationary officer at J&K Bank Kangan, lured him into investing in a high-return online trading scheme called “@RSN.” Dar claimed he shared his Aadhaar, PAN, and bank details with Shah, who then used his account for suspicious financial transactions. He also transferred Rs 5 lakh to Shah’s father’s account, expecting immediate returns that never materialised. Further allegations implicated Shah’s sister Rumaisa Jan and her fiancé Dr Aamir Bashir Magray in orchestrating similar fraudulent activities targeting several locals.
During investigation, the police unearthed startling details. “The bank accounts of the petitioners reflected transactions worth more than Rs 53 crore,” the court noted. Prosecution records showed Rs 4.15 crore credited to Shahnawaz Ahmad Shah’s account, Rs 22.31 crore to Rumaisa Jan’s, Rs 26.43 crore to Dr Aamir Bashir Magray’s, and Rs 24.10 crore to Ghulam Nabi Shah’s account. Authorities claimed the accused lured unsuspecting victims with promises of doubling their money through fake online trade platforms.
The prosecution argued that the accused were part of an organised financial conspiracy and had deceived thousands of people. “This is a case of grave economic offence involving systematic fraud. Granting bail at this stage would hamper the investigation and risk destruction of evidence, especially when some associates remain at large,” government advocate Waseem Gul told the court. He added that the Income Tax Department had been informed of the suspicious transactions and provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could also be invoked.
The defence, represented by advocates Salih Pirzada, Areeb Kawoosa, and Gagan Oswal, contended that the charges were exaggerated and invoked without legal basis. They argued that Section 111 of BNS, which pertains to organised crime, had been wrongly applied as there was no previous charge sheet or cognisance in similar offences within the last decade. They also maintained that the main offence under Section 318(4) of BNS carries a maximum sentence of seven years, making the accused eligible for default bail since they had spent over 75 days in custody. Additionally, they pleaded for bail on humanitarian grounds, citing medical issues of some petitioners.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments. “The invocation of Section 111 of BNS does not have sufficient basis, but prima facie, the petitioners are involved in the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 316(5) of BNS, which carries imprisonment for life,” the judge observed. He clarified that since the offence attracted a life sentence, the statutory period for default bail extended to 90 days, which had not yet expired.
On the merits, the court cited statements from 13 witnesses who confirmed they were duped by the accused and noted that the investigation was still far from completion, with many more victims yet to be identified. “The allegations point towards a huge financial and cyber fraud perpetrated in concert. The magnitude of the transactions and the number of victims involved make this a grave economic offence,” the judgment stated.
The court also dismissed the plea for bail on medical grounds, noting that Shah’s non-metastatic osteosarcoma diagnosis dated back to 2006 with no evidence of deterioration, and Rumaisa Jan’s medical records did not indicate any serious ailment.
While acknowledging that economic offences do not create an absolute bar on bail, the judge referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement to emphasise that such crimes are of “grave nature requiring sensitive consideration.”
“Considering the gravity of allegations, the organised nature of the offence, and the ongoing investigation involving massive financial fraud, this court does not find any merit in the petitions. The same are dismissed,” Justice Dhar concluded.
The accused remain in judicial custody, and the case continues to widen as investigators trace the money trail and identify more victims of the alleged scam.
