The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Amit Dewan, former Director (Finance) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), in two CBI cases linked to an alleged large-scale financial fraud involving government funds. The Court held that continued custody was not justified when no further recovery or custodial interrogation was required and substantial evidence was already in the possession of investigators.
Background of the Case
The cases stem from allegations that public funds belonging to government entities in Haryana and Chandigarh were diverted through bank accounts allegedly opened and operated in violation of established procedures.
According to the prosecution, funds were transferred into accounts maintained with private banks and subsequently withdrawn through unauthorized transactions. The CBI took over two separate investigations, which were re-registered as FIR No. RC2212026E0005 and FIR No. RC2212026E0009. Amit Dewan was arrested on March 18, 2026, and remained in custody thereafter.
Dewan argued that he was not named in the original FIRs, was not a signatory to the bank accounts in question, and had not personally benefited from the alleged transactions. His counsel also contended that no money trail linked him to the alleged fraud.
Court's Observations
Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that one of the investigations had already been completed and a chargesheet had been filed, while the second case involved substantially overlapping facts and allegations.
The Court observed that despite extensive investigation and custodial interrogation, no recovery had been made from the petitioner and no bank account, property, or asset had been identified as representing alleged proceeds of crime connected to him.
“The allegation of receipt of illegal gratification appears to rest primarily upon statements of certain witnesses,” the Court observed, adding that the evidentiary value of such statements would be examined during trial.
The bench also noted that decisions relating to opening bank accounts and placement of public funds were not shown to be exclusively within the petitioner’s authority. It further recorded that the Managing Director's approval formed part of the decision-making process and that several officials associated with the operation of the accounts had not been arraigned as accused.
Regarding an alleged suicide note relied upon by investigators, the Court said its authenticity, evidentiary value, and legal effect would have to be examined during trial and could not be treated as a decisive factor at the bail stage.
Decision
Referring to Supreme Court precedents on personal liberty and pre-trial detention, the High Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It observed that the petitioner had remained in custody since March 18, 2026, investigation in one FIR stood completed, and no further custodial interrogation was required.
Allowing both petitions, Justice Moudgil directed that Amit Dewan be released on regular bail in both cases upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Details:
Case Title: Amit Dewan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: CRM-M-33388-2026 (O&M) and CRM-M-33399-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Decision Date: June 12, 2026
