10/08/2026
Court grants bail to businessman in Rs 9.05 crore walnut supply cheating case.
Jammu, Aug 10: The Court of Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate First Class), Jammu has granted bail to Riyaz Ahmed Matto in a Crime Branch case alleging cheating of Rs 6.86 crore in walnut supply transactions.
An order passed by Sub Judge (JMIC) Jammu, Jeewan Kumar Sharma, in possession of the news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO) read “Where the investigation is complete and custodial interrogation is not required, no purpose is served by further custody, and that bail cannot be refused solely on the ground that the offence is economic in nature.”
The order was passed in File No. 614/2026/Bail (CNR No. JKJM030105832026), on the application of Riyaz Ahmed Matto S/o Ghulam Nabi Mattoo, R/o Khawaji Yarbal, Nizam Colony, Saida Kadal Rainawari, Srinagar, moved through his daughter Bazila Riyaz, in FIR No. 21/2019 of Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu, for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B RPC.
On the complaint of Rayees Ahmed, proprietor of Wals Walnuts Industries, Sunjwan, Bathindi, the prosecution alleged that the applicant in connivance with his wife induced the complainant to supply walnuts worth Rs. 9,05,19,077/- between November 2015 and October 2017 and paid only Rs. 2,19,18,475/-. The applicant was arrested on 08/06/2026 and lodged in District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu.
Appearing for the applicant, Viqas Malik, Advocate, with Vastav Sharma, Advocate, argued that the investigation stood complete, that the dispute related only to a breach of contract for which a civil remedy was available, that no element of inducement was made out, and that the applicant had never absconded.
Bandhana Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the UT of J&K, opposed the plea, urging that the offence was economic in nature and constituted a class apart, that the accused had not cooperated during the investigation, and that he was likely to influence witnesses and tamper with banking records, relying on Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta, 2026 INSC 161.
Distinguishing that judgment, the Court held that "Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not directed that in economic offences the bail cannot be granted in any case," and recorded that "there is no material to show that the accused is a habitual offender or was involved in any similar case earlier." On the amount remaining unrecovered, the Court observed that "the purpose to keep an accused behind the bars is not to recover the alleged amount of cheating especially in the case where the investigation in the case has already been completed and charge-sheeted stands presented."
Admitting the applicant to bail, the Court held that in a case carrying a sentence of seven years where custodial interrogation is not required, "the bail is a rule and jail is an exception." Bail was granted "subject to furnishing of two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each and a personal surety of matching amount," with conditions that he shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without permission and shall not influence witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence. The Court clarified that its observations "would not affect the merits of the main case."—(KNO)
