Different Approach Must Be Adopted In Bail Pleas Arising Out Of Corruption Cases Of Huge Magnitude: J&K HC Denies Bail To Chief Engineer

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that while determining a bail application, the severity of the punishment is an important but not the only factor; the court must also consider the nature and gravity of the offence with which the applicant is charged.

The court said that the allegations were not of an ordinary kind and fell under a different league. The case involved corruption allegations against the Chief Engineer of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited for receiving illegal gratification in relation to Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL) project, which is being supervised by Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KRCL).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said that as much as ₹9,42,500 was offered by the co-accused to the petitioner-accused, who accepted the same in lieu of favouring the company of which the co-accused happens to be a director. The court added that an amount of ₹73.11 lakh in cash was also recovered from the residence of the petitioner, and other sources are yet to be ascertained.

The court relied Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 wherein the court held that the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.

The petitioner had relied on a Supreme Court judgment, stating that the offence was punishable with a maximum of seven years and, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Satinder Kumar Antil case (2021), the petitioner's case was suitable for granting bail.

The court, however, said that the mere fact that the offence is not punishable with life imprisonment does not, by itself, become a ground for granting bail. Considering the magnitude of corruption in the instant case, a different approach had to be adopted.

The court said that there is a strong prima facie case, supported by the direct recovery of bribe money and independent witnesses, which justifies the denial of bail at this stage.

The court observed that the presence of overwhelming material in the Case Diary suggests that the allegations are not baseless but supported by credible evidence.

The court relied on Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab (2025), wherein it was observed that the presumption of innocence itself cannot be a consideration for granting bail. The court emphasized that it must balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice, and that over-solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can sometimes defeat the cause of public justice.

BACKGROUND

The CBI registered an FIR under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, read with Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Rajesh Kumar Jain (Petitioner) and Sumit Khajuria (co-accused, Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.) were allegedly involved in corrupt practices relating to the clearance of pending bills and revision of estimates for tunnel muck removal in the Katra-Dharam section of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL) project.

Rajesh Kumar Jain was caught delivering ₹9,42,500 to Sumit Khajuria as illegal gratification. A further sum of ₹73.11 lakh was recovered from the residential premises of Sumit Khajuria, which the CBI claims was collected from railway contractors as bribe money. Both accused were formally arrested and are currently lodged in District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu. The Special Judge (CBI), Jammu, denied bail, leading to the present applications before the High Court.

APPEARANCE:

Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohsin Bhat, Advocate in Bail App No. 49/2025 Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aftab Malik, Advocate and Mr.Ananya Gupta, Advocate in Bail App No. 50/2025 for Petitioners

Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG FOR Respondents

Case-Title: Rajesh Kumar Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors,

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 123

Click Here To Read/Download Order