Even in serious economic offences, bail should be granted if the accused has been in custody for a substantial period, investigation in one FIR is complete, no recovery or further interrogation is needed, and the allegations of benefit are not backed by tangible evidence; personal liberty prevails over speculative fears.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioner in the case FIR No.RC2212026E0005 dated 08.04.2026 and RC2212026E0009 dated 04.05.2026 registered at CBI, EO-III, New Delhi under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) BNS, 2023 and Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(a) of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

Vide this common order, this Court shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions since common questions of facts and law is involved therein and arising out of an alleged large-scale financial fraud involving certain Government departments and public sector entities of the States of Haryana and Chandigarh.

2. Brief Facts

The petitioner was serving as Director (Finance), Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), at the relevant time. The allegations broadly pertain to unauthorized opening and operation of bank accounts with private banks, transfer of public funds into such accounts, fraudulent withdrawal of funds and related banking transactions allegedly carried out in conspiracy with bank officials and other accused persons.

The first case emanates from FIR No. 04 dated 23.02.2026 registered by the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, which was subsequently taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation and re-registered as FIR No. RC2212026E0005 dated 08.04.2026. The said FIR concerns alleged irregularities in accounts maintained by HPGCL and other Government entities with IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank, resulting in alleged siphoning of public funds.

The second case arises out of FIR No. 03 dated 12.03.2026 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh, which was subsequently taken over by the CBI and re-registered as FIR No. RC2212026E0009 dated 04.05.2026. The allegations therein relate to unauthorized deposit and withdrawal transactions from accounts maintained by Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science & Technology Promotion Society (CREST) with IDFC First Bank, Chandigarh.

The petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2026 and has remained in custody thereafter. Investigation in FIR No. RC2212026E0005 is stated to have culminated in presentation of the challan, whereas investigation in FIR No. RC2212026E0009 is stated to be continuing. Since the allegations in both matters arise from the same alleged banking fraud and involve overlapping facts, parties and transactions, both petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the original FIRs and no specific role was attributed to him at the initial stage of investigation. It is argued that the allegations levelled in both cases essentially arise from the same set of banking transactions and, therefore, the subsequent registration of a separate FIR is itself a matter requiring consideration.

It is contended that the petitioner, while serving as Director (Finance), HPGCL, was functioning within a well-defined administrative hierarchy and was not vested with the authority to independently take decisions regarding opening of bank accounts or investment of public funds. According to learned Senior Counsel, the proposals were processed through various officers and ultimately required approval of the Managing Director and other competent authorities.

The Counsel further submits that the petitioner was neither a signatory to the bank accounts in question nor the custodian of the cheque books allegedly misused. The officials who opened and operated the accounts, handled the banking transactions and maintained custody of the relevant instruments have not been proceeded against, though they occupied