No Money Trail, No Recovery, No Further Custodial Interrogation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to HPGCL Finance Director Amit Dewan in Multi-Crore Banking Fraud Case

Case Name: Amit Dewan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Date of Judgment: 12 June 2026

Citation: CRM-M-33388-2026 & CRM-M-33399-2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the former Director (Finance) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL) in two CBI cases arising out of an alleged large-scale banking fraud involving diversion of public funds. The Court held that despite extensive investigation, no money trail had been traced to the petitioner, no recovery had been effected from him, no further custodial interrogation was required, and the prosecution case was predominantly based on documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency.

Summary: The petitions arose from two CBI FIRs registered in connection with an alleged banking fraud involving unauthorized opening and operation of bank accounts, diversion of public funds, and fraudulent withdrawals affecting government entities in Haryana and Chandigarh.

The petitioner, Amit Dewan, was serving as Director (Finance), Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), at the relevant time. The first FIR originated from a Vigilance Bureau investigation concerning alleged irregularities in accounts maintained by HPGCL and other government entities with private banks, resulting in alleged siphoning of public funds. The second FIR related to alleged unauthorized transactions involving accounts maintained by Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science & Technology Promotion Society (CREST).

The petitioner was arrested on 18 March 2026 and remained in custody thereafter. Investigation in one of the FIRs had already culminated in filing of the challan, while investigation in the second matter was continuing.

Seeking regular bail, the petitioner contended that he was not named in the original FIRs and had no independent authority to open bank accounts or transfer public funds. It was argued that the relevant proposals were processed through multiple levels of administration and ultimately required approval of higher authorities, including the Managing Director.

The petitioner further submitted that he was neither a signatory to the disputed accounts nor the custodian of the cheque books allegedly used for unauthorized withdrawals. It was emphasized that no money trail linked him to the alleged fraud, no recovery had been made from him, and no documentary, electronic, or forensic evidence established receipt of any portion of the allegedly siphoned funds.

The petitioner also argued that investigation in one FIR had been completed, no further custodial interrogation was necessary, and the case was based primarily on documentary evidence already collected by the investigating agency.

Opposing the petitions, the complainant and the CBI contended that the petitioner played an active role in facilitating unauthorized banking transactions and diversion of public funds. It was alleged that he consciously approved transactions despite knowledge of irregularities and received illegal gratification from co-accused persons.

Reliance was also placed on an alleged suicide note left by a deceased employee, Balwant Singh, which purportedly attributed a role to the petitioner regarding misuse of cheque books and forged signatures. The prosecution argued that the magnitude of the fraud involving public funds running into several hundred crores of rupees warranted denial of bail.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil examined the settled principles governing grant of bail and noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since 18 March 2026. The Court observed that investigation in one FIR had already concluded and that both cases substantially arose from the same set of banking transactions.

A significant factor weighed by the Court was the absence of any money trail connecting the petitioner to the alleged proceeds of crime. The Court recorded that despite extensive investigation and custodial interrogation, no bank account, property, asset, or recovery demonstrating receipt of illegal gratification had been identified.

The Court further observed that the opening and operation of the disputed accounts did not fall exclusively within the petitioner’s domain and that approvals of higher authorities formed part of the decision-making process. It also noticed that the petitioner was not a signatory to the account-opening documents and that several officials directly connected with operation of the accounts had not been proceeded against.

Regarding the alleged suicide note, the Court held that its authenticity, evidentiary value, and legal effect would have to be examined during trial and could not be treated as a determinative factor while deciding the bail application.

Relying upon decisions including P. Chidambaram v. CBI, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that personal liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against the seriousness of allegations and that pre-trial incarceration cannot be prolonged merely because the allegations involve economic offences.

Decision: Allowing both petitions, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court held that no further custodial interrogation or recovery was required, no money trail had been established against the petitioner, the prosecution case was primarily based on documentary evidence, and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds.