E-Paper
CBI court rejects bail plea of IDFC First Bank manager in ₹550 crore Haryana FDR fraud case
The case was registered by the CBI after discrepancies were detected in funds and fixed deposits (FDRs) of Haryana government departments maintained with IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank
A special CBI court has dismissed the first regular bail application of Ribhav Rishi, former branch manager of IDFC First Bank’s Sector 32 Chandigarh branch, in a case related to alleged fraudulent withdrawal and diversion of Haryana government funds amounting to around ₹550 crore.
Special judge (CBI), Haryana, Vijayant Sehgal, while dismissing the bail plea on August 21, observed that the allegations involved a large-scale economic offence and that the prosecution had prima facie pointed towards Rishi’s active involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The case was registered by the CBI after discrepancies were detected in funds and fixed deposits (FDRs) of Haryana government departments maintained with IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank. The initial FIR was registered against bank officials and unknown persons after a three-member inquiry committee found mismatches in accounts of the director, development and panchayats department, Haryana. Further investigation revealed similar discrepancies in accounts of other Haryana government departments. The first FIR was registered by ACB on February 23. The CBI took over investigations on April 8.
According to the CBI’s investigation, government funds were allegedly fraudulently withdrawn and transferred to shell entities through a network involving bank officials, private persons and some government officials. The agency alleged that Rishi was the “principal architect and mastermind” of the fraud and had misused his position as branch manager to execute the alleged scheme.
The prosecution alleged that Rishi opened government accounts at the IDFC First Bank Sector 32 branch without mandatory approvals and that forged debit notes, cheques and other documents were used to transfer funds to entities allegedly controlled by him and other accused persons.
The CBI further alleged that fake fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) and fabricated account statements were prepared and shared with government departments to show that their funds were secure. The investigation claimed that Rishi authorised at least 25 fraudulent debit transactions amounting to ₹187.3 crore across multiple government accounts.
The agency also alleged that shell companies, including SRR Planning Gurus, were used to receive and layer the defrauded funds. It claimed that Rishi and his wife received substantial amounts in their personal accounts from entities linked to the alleged fraud.
Opposing the bail plea, the CBI argued that releasing Rishi could allow him to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence and hamper further investigation. The agency stated that electronic evidence, WhatsApp chats, call detail records and emails supported its allegations against him.
Rishi’s counsel, however, argued that the investigation had been conducted in haste and that he was not responsible for the alleged fraud. The defence maintained that the evidence was documentary and electronic in nature and could not be tampered with, while also pointing out that the trial was likely to take considerable time.
The court noted that at the bail stage it was not required to conduct a detailed examination of evidence but found that the material collected by the prosecution could not be ignored at this stage. It observed that the allegations, if proved, involved siphoning of substantial public funds and that the gravity of the offence weighed against granting bail.
Rishi was arrested on February 24, 2026. The court recorded that investigation against him and other accused had progressed and final reports had been filed, though further investigation was continuing.
The court dismissed the bail application, clarifying that its observations were only for deciding the bail plea and would not affect the trial.
