Gujarat High Court Denies Bail to SBI Officer Accused of Rs 1.93 Crore Fraud in ATM Cash Case
The Gujarat High Court has rejected the second bail plea of an SBI cash officer accused of siphoning off ₹1.93 crore from the bank. The court described the case as a serious white-collar economic offence and said such cases require a strict approach.
Justice H D Suthar rejected the bail application of Bangmoy Chakravarti, who has been in custody since November 28, 2025. The case is registered at Rajpipla Police Station in Narmada district under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
How the Alleged Fraud Took Place
According to the prosecution, Chakravarti was responsible for taking cash from SBI’s currency chest at the Rajpipla branch and loading it into ATMs and cash deposit machines in the town.
Investigators alleged that he instead used his administrative credentials to change the cash balances shown by the ATM systems. This allegedly allowed him to withdraw cash while keeping the machines showing the required minimum balance.
The alleged cash shortage was then hidden through entries in the bank’s Core Banking System. According to the prosecution, the system showed that cash had been deposited even though the cash had allegedly not been deposited.
₹1.93 Crore Allegedly Withdrawn
The court order mentioned four alleged cash withdrawals:
| ATM Location | Alleged Amount |
|---|---|
| SBI ATM, Rajpipla Station Road | ₹39.98 lakh |
| ATM, Swaminarayan Gurukul, Poicha | ₹39.92 lakh |
| ATM No. 465624 | ₹62 lakh |
| ATM No. 465625, Santosh Chowkdi | ₹51.64 lakh |
The total amount allegedly siphoned off through these transactions was around ₹1.93 crore.
Money Trail Traced by Investigators
Investigators allegedly traced the money to Chakravarti’s accounts and to accounts of people described as his relatives in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand.
The money was later transferred through UPI, RTGS and NEFT transactions to accounts with ICICI Bank. According to the prosecution, transactions worth around ₹2.34 crore have so far been traced as part of the investigation.
Digital Evidence Found
The investigation also found a significant digital trail, according to the court. Chakravarti was transferred from the Rajpipla branch to the Nasvadi branch in Chhota Udepur district on October 17, 2025. However, his Cash Officer ID and password allegedly remained active until November 6.
Investigators found suspicious entries dated October 28, October 30 and November 3. The court also noted that CCTV footage allegedly showed Chakravarti at the concerned ATMs when the transactions took place. His mobile phone location data also allegedly matched the locations of the ATMs.
Defence Arguments
Chakravarti’s lawyer argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The defence said the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet had already been filed.
The lawyer also argued that there was nothing more to recover from Chakravarti and pointed out that he had no previous criminal record.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application. It argued that the case involved the alleged siphoning of a large amount of money from SBI.
The prosecution also alleged that Chakravarti had gone absconding after the offence and had taken assistance from local police in Jharkhand before he was arrested by the Gujarat Police. The state further argued that his release could allow him to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Court Takes Serious View of Economic Offence
The Gujarat High Court relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments while considering the bail plea. The court said economic offences are different from ordinary criminal cases because they can involve large financial losses and affect the wider community. It also referred to Supreme Court observations that such offences may involve careful planning and deliberate actions for personal financial gain.
The court cited the principle that economic offences constitute a separate category and may require a stricter approach while considering bail.
CCTV and Financial Trail Important for Bail Decision
The High Court noted that the case was not based only on statements by co-accused persons or on suspicion. The court considered the CCTV footage, mobile location information and financial transactions collected during the investigation as important pieces of evidence.
It also observed that the possibility of evidence tampering could not be completely ruled out because the case involved electronic records and financial transactions. Based on these factors, the Gujarat High Court rejected Chakravarti’s second bail application.
