SBI Clerk And Co-Accused In Alleged Bank Fraud Get Bail After 14 Months In Custody, With Only 1 Of 131 Witnesses Partly Examined: P&H HC

Both petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging diversion and embezzlement of funds from State Bank of India customer accounts.

Amit Dhingra, a bank clerk, was alleged to have diverted funds to co-accused, including his wife; Abhishek Kumar Gupta was alleged to have received money transferred by Dhingra.

Gupta’s earlier bail petition had been withdrawn, while Dhingra was seeking bail for the first time.

The prosecution alleged suspected transactions involving several crores and relied principally on documentary evidence.

Dhingra had been in custody since 30 April 2025; charges had been framed, but only one of 131 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and that witness’s evidence was incomplete.

The petitioners relied on the duration of custody, the slow progress of trial, and their clean antecedents; the State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the allegations and the risk of flight.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail; Section 480(6) was invoked by Dhingra in support of his application, but the Court’s stated basis for granting bail was the prejudice to the petitioners’ right to a speedy trial.

In assessing bail, the Court relied on Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134, for factors including the nature and severity of the accusation, supporting evidence, risks of witness tampering or threats, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice.

It also relied on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, for the principles that bail is ordinarily directed at securing an accused’s attendance at trial, pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment, and the seriousness of an economic offence must be balanced against the necessity and duration of custody.

The Court accepted that the allegations were serious but noted that the prosecution’s evidence was primarily documentary, the case was triable by a Magistrate, and the petitioners had clean antecedents.

Despite 131 prosecution witnesses being cited, only one had been examined, and only partly; the trial was therefore likely to take considerable time.

Finding no reason to believe that the petitioners would abscond or evade trial, the Court concluded that continued detention would unjustifiably prejudice their right to a speedy trial and was not warranted on the facts.

Bail was subject to conditions, including non-interference with evidence or witnesses, prior intimation of any change of residence, surrender of passports, and no travel outside India without prior court permission; the Trial Court could impose further conditions or cancel bail for breach.