₹5 crore embezzlement: Ex-GBU registrar denied anticipatory bail

Tripathi’s representative, Bhoop Singh, said that under Section 20 of the UP Gautam Buddha Nagar University Act, the registrar has no role in financial activities.

A sessions court has denied anticipatory bail to a suspended registrar Dr Vishwas Tripathi of the government-run Gautam Buddha University (GBU) in Greater Noida, who is facing allegations of embezzling ₹5 crore of public funds in connivance with 11 other office-bearers of the university.

The court found no sufficient basis for anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

On Tuesday, additional sessions judge-cum-special judge Abhishek Pandey on Tuesday observed, “On perusal of the case diary, the accused, along with the other co-accused, committed offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery, cheating, conspiracy, and embezzlement, involving public funds. The offence is serious in nature.”

The court found no sufficient basis for anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

In the anticipatory bail petition, Tripathi’s counsels, Bhoop Singh and Vaibhav Singh, argued that “the FIR is vague and no role of Tripathi is stated, as the registrar is not a member of the Finance Committee, which is headed by the vice-chancellor (VC) and the Finance Officer.”

This was opposed by special public prosecutor JP Bhati.

According to the FIR in the case, in 2020, when VC directed an internal reconciliation of the financial year 2024-25, “it was found that ₹5 crore had been embezzled”. A case, under sections 316(5) (criminal breach of trust) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the BNS, was registered against Tripathi, finance officer Neeraj Kumar and 10 other office-bearers of the varsity at Ecotech-1 police station in Greater Noida on April 9.

The FIR read, “The amount collected as fees from university students was recorded in the fee collection software but was completely absent from the official bank account of GBU. A three-member committee, headed by NM Singh, former Joint Director and Inspector General of Police, CBI Headquarters, Delhi, also found financial irregularities during Dr. Tripathi’s tenure.”

However, no arrests in the case have been made yet. Police stated that their investigation is ongoing and arrests will be made after recording statements and recovering evidence. Ecotech 1 station house officer Arvind Kumar said, “No arrest has been made yet. Our investigation is underway to verify the allegations made against the accused by the University.”

Tripathi’s representative, Bhoop Singh, said, “Under Section 20 of the UP Gautam Buddha Nagar University Act, the registrar has no role in financial activities. The allegation made against the registrar is completely false.”

Advocate Manoj Bhati, representing Neeraj Kumar, told HT, “Kumar retired from the university in January 2025. He has no role in the embezzlement, as all the transactions were handled by outsourced employees in the accounts department.”

Tripathi was suspended on December 29, 2025. In January, he filed a writ petition against the VC at the Allahabad HC. “The court passed an order for reinstatement on January 16, as the respondents were unable to provide any legal provision for the suspension order,” said Bhoop Singh.

Additional registrar and dean of vocational studies at GBU, CK Singh, who is currently holding the additional charge as the registrar, clarified that “Tripathi was suspended while another investigation into his ineligibility for the post of registrar and alleged fee irregularities was pending against him. According to the rules, a registrar should have 15 years of experience; however, he joined in 2011, making him ineligible for the position. The proceedings in the high court and the sessions court are separate and distinct.”

Despite two further orders for reinstatement, the registrar was not allowed to join, following which the court issued two contempt notices against the VC on March 30 and April 6.

Aditya Bhati, GBU’s advocate in the case, who is representing the VC, said, “The defence counsel is attempting to mislead by mixing a separate case with the embezzlement case. He was suspended because the VC found his involvement in financial irregularities. The suspension argument was not considered by court, so his anticipatory bail was rejected.”