The Allahabad high court has rejected two bail applications of an accountant accused of allegedly embezzling over ₹4 crore in donations to a Varanasi-based religious institution by forging bank deposit receipts and siphoning off public offerings.
In its October 14 order, Justice Krishan Pahal rejected the pleas, citing the nature and gravity of the allegations. The court directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously, in accordance with the law, if there was no legal impediment.
The accused, Vivek Kumar, worked as an accountant at Sadguru Sadafaldev Vihangam Yoga Sansthan, which has branches in Varanasi, Prayagraj and Gaya, among other places.
According to the FIR, on September 23, 2025, Kumar approached the office to account for ₹20,000 received as an offering (chadhava) to the institution and produced a deposit receipt purportedly issued by HDFC Bank.
The receipt raised suspicion among office employees, who allegedly discovered during a visit to the bank branch that it was fake. A subsequent examination of the accounts reportedly revealed that several other receipts submitted by Kumar were also forged. The prosecution further alleged that he attempted to bribe bank personnel to cover up his activities, with the incident reportedly recorded on the bank’s internal server.
The prosecution also alleged that Kumar’s brother, Abhishek Kumar, a chartered accountant, colluded in the embezzlement, causing losses worth crores of rupees to the institution. Vivek Kumar was also accused of formatting his mobile phone before investigators could seize it to conceal incriminating material.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution also alleged that Kumar’s brother, Abhishek Kumar, a chartered accountant, colluded in the embezzlement, causing losses worth crores of rupees to the institution. Vivek Kumar was also accused of formatting his mobile phone before investigators could seize it to conceal incriminating material.
{{/usCountry}}An FIR was registered at Chaubepur police station in Varanasi district under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to cheating (Section 420), forgery and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B). Kumar was arrested in October 2025.
During the hearing, the defence argued that Kumar had been falsely implicated and had no connection with the alleged offences. It submitted that he had worked with the institution for around 12 years and had no criminal antecedents. The defence also claimed that the case was a counterblast to a complaint by his brother alleging the abduction of his wife and their 1.5-year-old child by influential officials of the institution.
The state and the informant opposed the bail pleas, alleging that Kumar had siphoned off over ₹4 crore in public offerings while holding a position of trust. They described the alleged offence as a systematic diversion of religious donations through fraudulent transactions. They also cited his alleged acquisition of substantial assets and property investments, which they claimed were disproportionate to his official salary.
The court clarified that its observations were limited to the disposal of the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the case at trial.