The burden of proof for unauthorized electronic banking transactions lies on the bank, emphasizing their accountability in cases of customer negligence and fraud.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

4 19-12-2025 Heard Mr, Sudhanshu Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 596 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 379, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 10.08.2021 by the informant, Meena Kumari.

3. The factual matrix of this case is that the informant, namely, Mina Kumari retired Professor, submitted a written/typed report to the officer-in-charge Cyber Crime Department, Bihar and Town P.S., Muzaffarpur against unknown offender including the officials of telephone department and the concerned Bank (in which the informant has savings bank account bearing no. 033400000045635), the Punjab National Bank, Jawaharlal Road, Muzaffarpur regarding online fraud committed against her savings account whereby huge amount of her savings to the tune of Rs. 1 crore 7 lakh and 75 thousands was fraudulently withdrawn through RTGS mode in between 10.06.2021 to 15.06.2021. It has also been alleged that the informant came to know about online fraud when she went to P.N.B. Khabra Road branch for withdrawal of money on 09.08.2021, where she was reported about insufficient fund in her account. Further she was asked to contact her parent branch at Jawaharlal Road. She accordingly contacted the parent branch and got her passbook updated and then came to know about the fraud and thereafter lodged FIR.

4. Earlier, the Cr. Misc. No. 26771 of 2022 (Nitesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar) was rejected and now, the another bail application has come.

5. While rejecting the bail application, earlier, this Court recorded that the hard earned money of the lady professor to the tune of Rs. 1,07,75,000/- was illegally withdrawn and she being ill and underwent spinal surgery at RTMS Hospital, Gurgaon during the same period suffered huge financial loss, in that circumstance, the role of the bank also has to be investigated as it failed to protect the money of the informant.

6. However, there is nothing on record so far as the steps that the Bank took in the matter. In that background, learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to implead both the informant as also the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jawaharlal Road Branch, Muzaffarpur as opposite parties in course of the day.

7. Issue notice to both the newly added opposite parties through both processes i.e. ordinary as well as registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of four weeks failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.

8. In case, the order passed is not complied and the matter accordingly stands dismissed, subsequently, the same be posted under the heading ‘To be Mentioned’.

9. The Punjab National Bank is required to answer on the following points:

“(i) whether it was not the failure on the part of the bank to detect such huge withdrawal of the money from the retired lady Professor’s account and as such whether it has fixed accountability or not;

(ii) whether the lady is entitled to the compensation from the bank when she never got any message regarding the alleged withdrawal of entire money or not?.”

10. Mr. Anshul, learned Senior counsel has assisted this Court in the present case and has provided the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (henceforth for short ‘the RBI’) according to which, the Customer Protection Policy is there where in case of customer negligence/bank negligence/banking system frauds/third party breaches, bank needs to clearly define the rights and obligations of the customers in case of unauthorized transactions in specified scenarios. Further, the bank are also required to formulate/revise their customer relati