3 accused in New India Coop Bank case refused bail

Arunachalam’s advocate submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody as he is not involved in the present crime. Dedhia’s advocate argued that he was wrongly implicated in the matter, claiming his relationship with Mehta was civil in nature as he carried out renovation work at his residence. Pandey alleged that his wife was receiving treatment for a major depressive disorder

MUMBAI: The Esplanade metropolitan magistrate’s court has rejected the bail plea of three individuals arrested in connection with the alleged embezzlement of ₹122 crore from the cash reserves of the New India Cooperative Bank.

Mumbai, India - March 16, 2025:The Economic Offences Wing arrested Arunachalam Ullahanathan Maruthuvar, accused in the New India Co-operative Bank (NICB) misappropriation case, produced him before Esplande Court, n Mumbai, India, on Sunday, March 16, 2025. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times)

The court rejected the plea of businessman Manohar Arunachalam, civil contractor Kapil Dedhia and Raviranjan Pandey from Bokaro in Jharkhand, all of them are accused of receiving the proceeds of crime from the main accused, Hitesh Mehta, 57, general manager of the bank. The court observed that if released on bail, they may tamper with prosecution evidence and create difficulties in the ongoing forensic audit.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police told the court that Arunachalam along with his father Unnathan Arunachalam received ₹15 crore from Mehta and used that money to purchase a shop. Likewise, Dedhia received around ₹6 crore of the embezzled money from Mehta, they submitted.

Several sums were transferred to other accused such as Ganesh Banjo Plast, Techmen Fest, Shravan Dhurve, the EOW added. Pandey acted as a middleman, transferring the cash from Mehta to other accused, argued the EOW, adding that he also received around ₹90 lakh as part of the crime proceeds.

Arunachalam’s advocate submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody as he is not involved in the present crime. Dedhia’s advocate argued that he was wrongly implicated in the matter, claiming his relationship with Mehta was civil in nature as he carried out renovation work at his residence. Pandey alleged that his wife was receiving treatment for a major depressive disorder.

The court observed that the FIR, subsequent investigation, and chargesheet show the role of Mehta with the support of other accused. “The role of the present accused has been clearly put forth by the investigating officer. The involvement of this accused along with the other accused has been mentioned,” said the court.

The EOW began investigating the case after the Reserve Bank of India found ₹122 crore missing from the cash reserves of New India Cooperative Bank, during a surprise audit on February 12. Mehta was the first person to be arrested, after he confessed to his role in removing cash from the bank.

“Apparently, the charge sheet clearly carves out the role of this accused in the overall crime. It cannot be stated that the Investigating officer rushed to file a charge sheet without proper details. Indeed there are submissions that the forensic audit has been undertaken in respect of the present crime,” observed the court. It said the offence alleged against the three accused along with others is serious and involves large sums of money.