J&K High Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Man Who Ran Property Scam By Posing As Co-Producer Of 'Bahubali' Film

In declining relief to the accused, Justice Rajnesh Oswal underscored the seriousness of the allegations against him for having posed as a co-producer of the blockbuster movie "Bahubali."

“.. the investigation of the case has reached at a crucial stage, as such, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail at this stage. However, this Court deems it proper to direct the SSP concerned to supervise and monitor the investigation himself to ensure fair investigation”, the bench ordered.

Petitioner Nagraj V., aged 34, was arrested after an FIR was filed against him on April 26, 2024, by a complainant who alleged that Nagraj duped him out of substantial sums of money under the pretext of selling a property in New Delhi.

According to the complainant, Nagraj posed as a significant businessman and political figure, luring him into a fraudulent property deal and extorting money through coerced online transfers while in police custody.

Seeking Bail for Nagraj, Advocate Areeb Javed Kawoosa argued that the FIR was based on contradictory and concocted facts. He claimed that the complainant had manipulated the police to torture and coerce Nagraj into transferring money. Kawoosa emphasized Nagraj's reputable status and insisted that the accusations were unfounded and politically motivated.

On the other side, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, along with the investigating officer, presented a different narrative. They detailed how Nagraj had a history of fraud and multiple FIRs against him across different states, including Tamil Nadu.

Qadri also highlighted Nagraj's changing addresses and fraudulent social media presence, asserting that the bail should be denied to prevent him from fleeing.

Adjudicating the bail application the court noted the severity of the charges, including the fraudulent misrepresentation of property ownership and the duping of the complainant out of Rs 1.06 crores.

“Though the complainant has jumbled the facts in his complaint but what is discernible from his complaint is that the petitioner showed false papers of the property claimed to be owned by him to the complainant and obtained the amount from the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly”,the bench recorded.

The petitioner's involvement in numerous other financial scams and the existence of multiple FIRs against him indicated a pattern of criminal behaviour.

Agreeing with the prosecution that granting bail would likely result in Nagraj evading legal proceedings, given his history of using multiple addresses and his previous actions the court acknowledged that the investigation was at a crucial stage, and tampering with evidence was a significant concern if the petitioner were released.

Based on these observations, the High Court found no merit in the bail application and hence dismissed the same.

“Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned court afresh for grant of bail, after the chargesheet is filed”, the court concluded.

Case Title: Mr. Nagraj V Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 208

Mr.Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate represented the petitioner, Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG appeared for UT of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment