The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to Amit Dewan, a former Director (Finance) of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL), in the Rs 645-crore bank scam, while noting that the then Managing Director (MD), whose approval was required for opening bank accounts and parking public funds, has not been named as an accused.Dewan was posted as Director (Finance) when the scam took place. After his name surfaced in the case, the Haryana government dismissed him from service.The scam relates to the unauthorised opening and operation of bank accounts in IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank, transfer of public funds into such accounts, fraudulent withdrawals and related banking transactions allegedly carried out in conspiracy with bank officials and Haryana government employees.During the arguments, Dewan submitted that he was not vested with the authority to independently make decisions regarding opening bank accounts or investing public funds. He added that proposals were processed through various officers and required approval from the Managing Director and other competent authorities. Dewan further contended that he was neither a signatory to the bank accounts in question nor the custodian of the cheque books allegedly misused.Officials who opened and operated the accounts, handled banking transactions and maintained custody of relevant instruments had not been proceeded against despite their direct involvement in the alleged transactions, he added.The then MD is a serving IAS officer.The CBI and IDFC First Bank opposed his bail application. The bank contended that the investigation had disclosed that Dewan received illegal gratification from co-accused and was a beneficiary of the alleged fraud. Referring to the alleged suicide note left by late HPGCL employee Balwant Singh, the CBI contended that the same prima facie indicated Dewan’s involvement in the misuse of cheque books and forged signatures.The Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, “This Court also finds substance in the submission that the opening of the accounts and placement of public funds therein were not matters falling exclusively within the domain of the petitioner (Dewan). The record indicates that the proposals ultimately required approval of the Managing Director. Significantly, the Managing Director, whose approval forms part of the decision-making process, has not been arrayed as an accused.”The Bench further said, “Equally, the petitioner is admittedly not a signatory to the account-opening forms. Various officials connected with the operation of the accounts and the processing of banking transactions have also not been proceeded against.”The Bench pointed out that allegations of receiving bribes were leveled by a co-accused, whose veracity, admissibility, and evidentiary value would be tested during the trial.While granting regular bail, the bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil said that Dewan had remained in custody since March 18; the investigation in one of the FIRs was complete, and no further custodial interrogation or recovery was required.“Thus, the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses can be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions. Consequently, balancing the seriousness of the allegations with the settled principles governing personal liberty and pre-trial detention, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on regular bail,” said the order, dated June 12.