High Court Denies Bail To Accountant Accused Of Embezzling ₹4 Crore From Donations To A Religious Institution In Varanasi

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail applications of an accountant accused of embezzling over ₹4 crore belonging to a religious institution in Varanasi by allegedly forging bank deposit receipts and siphoning off public offerings.

Given the nature and gravity of the allegations, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal found that the case did not warrant bail.

The Court, however, directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there was no legal impediment.

Briefly put, the applicant (Vivek Kumar) was employed as an accountant at the Sadguru Sadafaldev Vihangam Yoga Sansthan, which has branches in several locations, including Varanasi, Prayagraj and Gaya.

The informant, a member of Swarved Mahamandir Dham Mudli Umraha, Varanasi, alleged that on September 23, 2025, the applicant approached the office to account for ₹20,000 received as an offering (chadhava) to the institution and produced a deposit receipt purportedly issued by HDFC Bank.

The receipt raised suspicion among office employees. Upon visiting the bank branch, they allegedly discovered that the deposit receipt was fake.

A subsequent examination of the accounts allegedly revealed that several other bank receipts the applicant had previously submitted were also forged and counterfeit.

The prosecution further alleged that the applicant attempted to bribe bank personnel to cover up his activities and the incident was reportedly recorded on the bank's internal server.

The prosecution also alleged that the applicant's brother, Abhishek Kumar, a chartered accountant, actively colluded in the alleged embezzlement, causing the institution losses of crores of rupees.

The applicant was further accused of formatting his mobile phone before the investigating agency could seize it, to conceal incriminating material.

He was thus booked under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was arrested in October last year.

Seeking bail in the case, the applicant's counsel submitted that he had been falsely implicated and had no connection with the alleged offences.

It was argued that he had worked with the institution for approximately 12 years and had no criminal antecedents.

It was also claimed that the criminal case was a counterblast to a complaint lodged by his brother alleging the abduction and kidnapping of his wife and their 1.5-year-old child by influential officials of the institution.

The State and the informant opposed the bail applications, contending that the applicant allegedly embezzled more than ₹4 crore from public offerings dedicated to the institution while occupying a position of trust.

They described the alleged offence as a systematic siphoning of religious donations through numerous fraudulent transactions.

They also pointed to the applicant's alleged acquisition of substantial assets and property investments, which they claimed were disproportionate to his modest official salary.

Against this backdrop, the Court rejected both bail applications and directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously, provided there is no legal impediment.

It clarified that its observations were confined to disposing of the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the case at trial.