Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former HPGCL Finance Director Amit Dewan in Rs 645-Crore Bank Scam Case

• WhatsApp
• YouTube
• X
• Instagram

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to former Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL) Director (Finance) Amit Dewan in the alleged Rs 645-crore banking fraud case, a development that has once again brought the spotlight on the wider investigation into one of Haryana’s most significant financial scandals involving public funds.

The court’s decision is notable not only because of the scale of the alleged fraud but also because of its observations regarding the role of senior officials in the decision-making process. While granting relief to Dewan, the High Court pointed out that the then Managing Director of HPGCL, a serving IAS officer whose approval was allegedly required for opening bank accounts and parking public money, has not been named as an accused in the case.

The scandal revolves around the alleged unauthorized opening and operation of bank accounts in IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank. Investigators claim that substantial amounts of public funds were transferred into these accounts before being fraudulently withdrawn through a series of banking transactions allegedly carried out in conspiracy with bank officials and certain government employees.

Amit Dewan, who served as Director (Finance) during the period under scrutiny, came under the scanner as the investigation progressed. Following the emergence of allegations against him, the Haryana government dismissed him from service, a move that underscored the seriousness with which authorities viewed the case.

During the hearing, Dewan’s legal team argued that he did not possess independent authority to open bank accounts or make unilateral decisions regarding the investment and placement of public funds. According to the defense, all financial proposals passed through multiple levels of administrative scrutiny and ultimately required approvals from the Managing Director and other competent authorities.

The defense further maintained that Dewan was neither a signatory to the bank accounts in question nor responsible for the custody of cheque books allegedly used in the fraudulent transactions. His counsel argued that several officials directly involved in opening and operating the accounts, processing transactions, and maintaining banking instruments had not faced similar legal action despite their alleged involvement in the chain of events.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that evidence gathered during the probe indicated Dewan’s active involvement in the alleged fraud. Investigators contended that he was a beneficiary of illegal gratification received from co-accused persons and played a role in facilitating the misuse of public funds.

The investigating agency also referred to an alleged suicide note left behind by late HPGCL employee Balwant Singh. According to the CBI, the contents of the note prima facie pointed toward Dewan’s involvement in the misuse of cheque books and forged signatures connected to the disputed transactions.

IDFC First Bank, which also opposed the bail application, argued before the court that the investigation had revealed financial links and benefits allegedly accruing to Dewan from the fraudulent scheme. The bank maintained that the allegations against him were serious and warranted continued custody.

However, Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while examining the material placed before the court, observed that the responsibility for opening bank accounts and placing public funds could not be attributed exclusively to the petitioner.

“This Court also finds substance in the submission that the opening of the accounts and placement of public funds therein were not matters falling exclusively within the domain of the petitioner,” the court observed. The order further noted that proposals required approval from the Managing Director and that the senior officer concerned had not been arrayed as an accused despite being part of the approval mechanism.

The court also highlighted that Dewan was not a signatory to the account-opening forms and pointed out that several officials associated with operating the accounts and handling banking transactions had not been proceeded against.

Addressing allegations related to bribe payments, the court noted that such accusations were primarily based on statements made by a co-accused person. The order stated that the veracity, admissibility, and evidentiary value of those allegations would ultimately be tested during trial proceedings.

The High Court also took into account the stage of the investigation. Dewan has remained in judicial custody since March 18, and investigators informed the court that the probe in one of the FIRs had been completed. The court noted that no further custodial interrogation or recovery was required from the accused.

In its order dated June 12, the court observed that concerns regarding witness influence or evidence tampering could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions. Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against the principles of personal liberty and pre-trial detention, the bench concluded that continued incarceration would not serve any meaningful purpose.

The ruling is likely to generate renewed debate about accountability in large-scale financial fraud cases involving government institutions. Legal experts note that the court’s observations regarding the absence of senior decision-makers from the list of accused could intensify scrutiny of the investigative process and raise questions about whether responsibility has been fixed across all levels of administration.

The alleged scam has already shaken confidence in internal financial controls within public sector entities in Haryana. Investigators continue to examine how large sums of taxpayer money were allegedly diverted through unauthorized banking channels and whether systemic failures enabled the fraud to continue undetected.

As the criminal proceedings move forward, the focus is expected to remain on the role played by various officials, banking personnel, and administrative authorities connected to the transactions. While the grant of bail does not amount to an acquittal, the High Court’s observations have added a new dimension to a case that continues to attract significant legal and public attention across Haryana and beyond.