₹122 Crore New India Co-Operative Bank Fraud Case: Court Denies Bail To General Manager, Cites Risk Of Evidence Tampering

₹122 Crore New India Co-Operative Bank Fraud Case: Court Denies Bail To General Manager, Cites Risk Of Evidence Tampering

In the Rs 122 crore New India Co-Operative Bank fraud case, a Mumbai court denied bail to the accused GM, citing his key role and risk of evidence tampering. The court stressed strict scrutiny in economic offences.

Charul Shah JoshiUpdated: Friday, April 10, 2026, 03:24 AM IST
article-image
New India Co-operative Bank Scam | Vijay Gohil FPJ

Mumbai, April 9: The sessions court has refused to grant bail to Hitesh Mehta, New India Cooperative Bank’s general manager booked for defrauding the bank to the tune of Rs 122 crore, observing that he is alleged to be the prime accused in misappropriation of the bank’s cash deposit amounts.

Court cites primary role in offence

Sessions Judge Vikram R. Jagdale, in the order, said, “It is clear that the applicant is the prime accused in the above offence and clearly reveals complicity of the applicant.”

“Merely because an accused is incarcerated for a long duration of time cannot be a ground to grant bail because one cannot lose sight of the fact that in cases of economic offence it takes time to commence and conclude the trial when there are numerous accused and witnesses,” the court said.

Fraud detected during RBI inspection

The case was registered by an accounting chief executive officer of the bank. It is claimed that on February 12, 2025, RBI officers carried out an inspection at the Goregaon branch. During the inspection, it was revealed that there was a shortfall of Rs 112 crore in the vault of the bank at the Prabhadevi branch.

When the internal inquiry yielded no result, a formal complaint was lodged with the police. Two days later, on February 14, 2025, Mehta was arrested.

Defence claims false implication

While seeking bail, his lawyer, Karan Mehta, contended that the suspect had no nexus with the alleged offence. The defence claimed Mehta was roped in solely based on a co-accused's statement.

It is also alleged that Mehta confessed to the missing cash in writing and on a mobile recording. Refuting the prosecution, the defence relied on an internal audit report: “Physical verification of cash was done by the auditor and the report reflects no deficit in cash amount.”

Also Watch:

Court flags risk of tampering and absconding

Refusing bail, the court said, “Possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant may tamper with the evidence and flee in order to avoid trial. In light of this, the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity and prolonged incarceration.”

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/