Ghaziabad Court Denies Bail to Bank Employee in Major Embezzlement Case
A sessions court in Ghaziabad has firmly rejected the bail application of a customer service associate-cum-cashier from the Patla branch of Punjab and Sind Bank. The employee, Somil Tiwary, stands accused of orchestrating a sophisticated embezzlement scheme, allegedly siphoning off a staggering Rs 67 lakh from the accounts of multiple customers.
Discovery of the Fraudulent Transactions
The fraudulent activities came to light on July 4, 2025, when branch manager Himanshu Gupta noticed suspicious withdrawals. An amount of Rs 2.5 lakh had been transferred via RTGS from the accounts of two customers, Omkar and Ranbiri, and deposited into an account under the name Tanushikha Bharti. Upon investigation, both customers confirmed they had never authorized such transactions or visited the branch for this purpose.
This discovery triggered a deeper probe, revealing that the bank account of Tanushikha Bharti was directly linked to the mobile number of Somil Tiwary, the customer service associate-cum-cashier at the same branch. This critical connection led to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) at Niwari police station on November 21 last year, charging Tiwary with criminal breach of trust and fund embezzlement.
Prosecution's Case and Court Proceedings
During the court hearing, the prosecution presented a detailed account of the alleged fraud. They asserted that Tiwary had opened a fake account in the name of Tanushikha Bharti to facilitate the illegal transfers. Investigating officer Shivi Agarwal recorded statements from bank customers, uncovering that funds had been illicitly withdrawn from eight different customer accounts, totaling the massive Rs 67 lakh sum.
The prosecution counsel emphasized that a comprehensive internal investigation by the bank is currently underway. They also highlighted that Tiwary's services were suspended by the regional manager in Noida on October 18, prior to the FIR. Crucially, the prosecution argued that the involvement of other unknown individuals or officials cannot be ruled out at this stage, underscoring the necessity of keeping Tiwary in judicial custody to prevent any potential tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses.
Defense Arguments and Judicial Ruling
In his defense, Tiwary's counsel vehemently proclaimed his client's innocence, stating he has been falsely implicated. The defense pointed out the absence of independent witnesses against Tiwary and noted that he was not apprehended at the alleged scene of the incident. They further argued that Tiwary hails from a respectable family, has no prior criminal history, and has been incarcerated since December 13, causing undue hardship.
However, Judge Vinod Singh Rawat delivered a decisive ruling, denying bail. The judge noted a glaring discrepancy: the mobile number listed on the account opening form for Tanushikha Bharti's account was different from the number actually used for the fraudulent transactions. The number used for the transactions was definitively linked to the accused, Somil Tiwary.
Judge Rawat characterized this as a serious case of fraud, with substantial evidence pointing to Tiwary's involvement. The court found the prosecution's arguments regarding the risk of evidence tampering and the ongoing investigation to be compelling, leading to the order for Tiwary to remain in judicial custody as the legal proceedings continue.
