Court holds that prima facie evidence links Cluster Sales Head to fraudulent reactivation and withdrawal from dormant account; custodial interrogation deemed necessary to probe wider conspiracy
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Gujarat High Court refused anticipatory bail to Yogendra Vijay Bahadur Singh, a Cluster Sales Head at Axis Bank, accused of misusing his official position to divert government financial assistance meant for a widow under the Ganga Swarup Vidhva Sahay Scheme. The application was dismissed by Mr. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, who emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the prima facie connection between the accused and the alleged fraudulent transactions.
The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at Valiya Police Station, Bharuch district, alleging that the applicant, in collusion with a co-accused operational head of the bank, reactivated a dormant bank account of a widow beneficiary and altered the registered mobile number, facilitating unauthorized withdrawal of funds. The prosecution contended that the accused orchestrated these actions to divert the financial assistance sanctioned by the government for the welfare of the complainant.
During the bail hearing under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant's counsel argued that there was no direct transactional link between the applicant and the complainant's account, and that the statements implicating the applicant relied heavily on the uncorroborated confession of the co-accused. It was further submitted that the accused had no supervisory or reporting relationship with the co-accused, and the amount allegedly misappropriated had been recovered.
However, the State's Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, highlighting that the investigation revealed the applicant's active role in reactivating the dormant account and facilitating fund withdrawals. The prosecution stressed that the applicant's use of his banking authority to manipulate customer accounts constituted a serious breach of institutional trust, especially since the funds were government aid to a vulnerable widow. The court was also apprised that the co-accused admitted to withdrawing money and distributing it with the applicant, underscoring the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy.
The High Court meticulously examined the prosecution material, including electronic and documentary evidence and the statements of the co-accused. It was observed that the allegations went beyond a mere banking transaction dispute, amounting to a breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of official authority. The court noted that the subsequent deposit of Rs. 48,200 into the complainant's account by the co-accused did not negate the earlier unauthorized transactions or the applicant's alleged involvement.
Citing precedents such as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the court underscored that the evidentiary value of co-accused statements and the necessity of custodial interrogation at the investigation's nascent stage warranted refusal of anticipatory bail. The court further emphasized that it was not within its purview to direct the manner of interrogation, which is a matter for the investigating agency.
The judgment reflects the judiciary's firm stance against financial frauds exploiting vulnerable citizens and underscores the importance of safeguarding public trust in banking institutions. The rejection of anticipatory bail in this case serves as a warning that misuse of entrusted authority, particularly involving government welfare schemes, will be dealt with sternly.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail - Alleged misuse of banking authority by Cluster Sales Head for reactivation of dormant account of widow beneficiary under Government scheme and withdrawal of funds - Where prosecution attributed specific role to applicant, investigation prima facie connected him with transaction, and custodial interrogation was found necessary at nascent stage, anticipatory bail was refused.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406, Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66C
Yogendra Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001056
