Parity not applicable for ‘prime accused’: Court denies bail to former New India Co-op Bank GM in ₹122 cr fraud

The court held that the scale and structure of the alleged siphoning operation outweigh bail considerations, rejecting his plea for parity with co-accused

MUMBAI: A sessions court on Thursday denied bail to Hitesh Pravinchandra Mehta, then general manager (accounts) of New India Co-operative Bank, calling him the “prime accused” in the ₹122 crore vault cash shortfall case flagged during a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) inspection.

(Shutterstock)

The court held that the scale and structure of the alleged siphoning operation outweigh bail considerations, rejecting his plea for parity with co-accused.

Judge Vikram R. Jagdale of the designated MPID court said the material on record “clearly reveals complicity”, pointing to allegations that over ₹121.95 crore was siphoned through forged electronic records, fabricated debit entries and accounting manipulation.

The case stems from a February 12, 2025 inspection at the bank’s Prabhadevi branch, where RBI officials detected a ₹112 crore mismatch between recorded and actual cash during a vault verification exercise.

Following an internal escalation and police complaint, the probe was taken over by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Investigators allege the diversion spanned multiple years and branches, including Goregaon, with funds routed through heads such as “sundry receivables” to mask the siphoning.

Citing the charge sheet, the court referred to witness statements recorded before a magistrate and electronic evidence, including deleted chats with co-accused. It also noted that assets allegedly linked to the proceeds include four flats, two commercial units and bank deposits.

Citing the charge sheet, the court referred to witness statements recorded before a magistrate and electronic evidence, including deleted chats exchanged with co-accused. It also noted that assets allegedly linked to the proceeds include four flats, two commercial units and bank deposits.

The court also dealt squarely with the parity argument by distinguishing Mehta’s role from that of co-accused who have already secured bail earlier, noting that several of them were beneficiaries rather than the alleged architects of the diversion. The order identified Dharmesh Jayantilal Paun, described as a developer and the “ultimate beneficiary”; Javed Mohd. Farooq Azam, a beneficiary of around ₹18 crore; and Kapil Kalyanji Dedhia, a beneficiary of about ₹1 crore.

Against this backdrop, the court held that Mehta’s position as a key accounting authority, coupled with his alleged central role in creating forged entries and structuring the siphoning operation, placed him on a distinct footing, making parity inapplicable despite the release of these co-accused. It added that parity cannot be applied mechanically in economic offences.

The court also dismissed arguments on prolonged incarceration, noting that trials in such cases, which are marked by voluminous records and multiple witnesses, take time. It said the risk of evidence tampering or absconding cannot be ruled out.

On the defence’s objection to forensic tests conducted without consent, the court said the issue is pending before the high court and refrained from commenting.

Mehta, arrested on February 14, 2025, remains in judicial custody. The prosecution has filed three charge sheets and cited around 260 witnesses and the court said the case requires a full trial and found no grounds for bail.