The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea assailing the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to Amit Dewan, former Director (Finance) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), in a case arising out of the alleged large-scale financial fraud involving certain Government departments and public sector entities of the States of Haryana and Chandigarh.

The CBI has filed a Special Leave Petition against the impugned order. Dewan was arrested on March 18, 2026, and was granted bail by the High Court on June 12, 2026.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana sought a reply from the accused Amit Dewan.


ASG SV Raju appeared for the CBI

The allegations broadly pertained 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 FIR was registered by the CBI for 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.

There was a second case arising out of another FIR against allegations therein related 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 principal allegation of the prosecution was that the Accused was a beneficiary of the conspiracy and had received illegal gratification. 

The High Court, vide impugned order, had observed, "No recovery has been effected from him and no bank account, property or asset has been identified as representing the alleged proceeds of crime. At this stage, the allegation of receipt of illegal gratification appears to rest primarily upon statements of certain witnesses claiming to have extended benefits in kind to the petitioner. The correctness, admissibility and evidentiary value of such statements are matters to be tested during trial. Presently, this Court does not find any tangible material demonstrating that the petitioner was a direct beneficiary of the alleged siphoned funds."

The High Court had also found logic in the fact that the opening of the accounts and placement of public funds therein were not matters falling exclusively within the domain of the Accused.

It was the case of the Accused that he was neither a signatory to the bank accounts in question nor the custodian of the cheque books allegedly misused. He had argued that 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 a more proximate position in relation to the alleged transactions.

"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", the High Court had held.

Consequently, the High Court had granted bail to Dewan.

Hence, the present special leave to appeal was filed.

The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and listed it for a further date.

Cause Title: CBI v. Amit Dewan [Diary No. 47771/2026]

Tags: