A special CBI court has dismissed the bail plea of Surinder Jain, the then senior accounts officer of the municipal corporation (MC), Panchkula, arrested in connection with the alleged ₹504 crore Haryana government funds fraud involving IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank.
Special judge Vijayant Sehgal, while dismissing the application on Tuesday, observed that the allegations concerned a large-scale economic offence involving the siphoning of substantial public funds. The court held that no ground for granting bail was made out at this stage, particularly as further investigation into the money trail was continuing.
According to the prosecution, Jain was serving as senior accounts officer of MC Panchkula and also held additional charge of senior accounts officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB). He allegedly conspired with bank officials and private persons to facilitate the diversion of government funds through fraudulent transactions.
The CBI alleged that the accused caused a wrongful loss of ₹100 crore to MC Panchkula and ₹18 crore to MC Kalka. It further alleged that Jain issued five cheques from government accounts on the pretext of creating fixed deposits and personally handed them over to co-accused Abhay Kumar, who allegedly used them for unauthorised withdrawals.
The prosecution also cited WhatsApp chats, calls and alleged undue benefits in the form of air tickets and hotel accommodation for a Goa trip booked for Jain and his wife. The court noted these allegations while assessing his role at the bail stage.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution also cited WhatsApp chats, calls and alleged undue benefits in the form of air tickets and hotel accommodation for a Goa trip booked for Jain and his wife. The court noted these allegations while assessing his role at the bail stage.
{{/usCountry}}Opposing the plea, the CBI argued that Jain had helped secure acceptance of IDFC First Bank’s quotations and remained in contact with the co-accused despite discrepancies in account statements.
Jain’s counsel argued that he had an unblemished service record, lacked unilateral authority over the transactions and had raised concerns about the bank’s handling of funds. The defence also cited his prolonged custody since June 6 and medical grounds.
Rejecting the parity plea based on bail granted to co-accused Amit Dewan, the court held that Jain’s alleged role was qualitatively different. It clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case during trial.