The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to Amit Dewan, former Director (Finance) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), in connection with two CBI cases involving an alleged large-scale financial fraud concerning diversion of public funds. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 198]

The Court allowed two connected petitions, noting that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified in the absence of tangible evidence linking the accused to personal gain from the alleged fraud.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "this Court finds that the petitioner has remained in custody since 18.03.2026; investigation in the one of the FIRs stands completed, no further custodial interrogation or recovery is stated to be required. Thus, the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses can be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions."

The Court added that, "Consequently, balancing the seriousness of the allegations with the settled principles governing personal liberty and pre-trial detention, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on regular bail."

The case pertains to FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) relating to alleged unauthorized opening and operation of bank accounts in private banks, through which public funds were allegedly siphoned off. The allegations involve government entities in Haryana and Chandigarh and transactions running into several hundred crores.

The petitioner was arrested on March 18, 2026, and had remained in custody since then.

Senior advocate for the petitioner inter alia argued that he was not named in the original FIRs and he had no independent authority to open bank accounts or transfer funds.

It was further argued that investigation in one of the FIRs had already been completed and a chargesheet filed.

Opposing the plea, the CBI and the complainant bank contended that the petitioner was an active conspirator who facilitated illegal transactions and received undue benefits. They relied on material collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses and an alleged suicide note, to argue that the petitioner played a key role in the fraud.

The Court noted several significant factors including that the petitioner had remained in custody for nearly three months, investigation in one FIR was complete, while the second involved overlapping allegations.

It further pointed that no recovery was pending and no further custodial interrogation was required and no concrete material or money trail was presented to show that the petitioner personally benefited from the alleged fraud.

The Court also observed that the role attributed to the petitioner was not exclusive, as decision-making involved multiple officers, including higher authorities who had not been arrayed as accused.

"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 record indicates that the proposals ultimately required approval of the Managing Director. Significantly, the Managing Director, whose approval forms part of the decision-making process, has not been arrayed as an accused. Equally, the petitioner is admittedly not a signatory to the account-opening forms. Various officials connected with operation of the accounts and processing of banking transactions have also not been proceeded against. Without commenting upon the merits of the prosecution case, these circumstances assume relevance while evaluating the precise role attributed to the petitioner for the limited purpose of bail".

With respect to the alleged suicide note relied upon by the prosecution, the Court held that its evidentiary value would be tested during trial and cannot be a determinative factor at the stage of bail.

Holding that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

Title: AMIT DEWAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Jain, Advocate and

Mr. K.S.Nalwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kanwarpal Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sanal Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent/CBI.

Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate Mr.Arjun Singh Rai, Advocate and Mr. Hardik Baid, Advocate for the complainant.

Click here to read order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 198