A local CBI court on Tuesday dismissed the regular bail plea of former Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science & Technology Promotion Society (CREST) CEO and Indian Forest Services officer Navneet Kumar Srivastava, observing that prima facie material on record indicated at his active role in the diversion of government funds.
Special judge Bhawna Jain, while rejecting the plea, noted that the case involved unauthorised transactions of around ₹205 crore from CREST accounts, of which ₹130 crore had been received back, leaving an assessed loss of ₹75 crore, excluding interest.
Srivastava, who has been in custody since June 17, is facing CBI charges in a case involving alleged fraudulent banking transactions, forgery, conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI had alleged that Srivastava, being the CREST’s ex-officio CEO and administrative and financial head, was one of the two authorised signatories of its accounts.
‘Approved opening of account with IDFC’
The court took note of the prosecution’s allegation that Srivastava approved the opening of a CREST account with IDFC First Bank on November 8, 2024, after the matter had initially been proposed for Union Bank of India. Within three days, a ₹5-lakh demand draft was allegedly prepared in his name from the account of CAPCO Fintech Services, a company through which the CBI alleged that CREST funds were siphoned off. The draft was later cancelled and ₹5 lakh was transferred to Vipam Consultancy, a company controlled by his wife.
The court also noted that ₹95 lakh was subsequently transferred from CAPCO to Vipam Consultancy, of which ₹80 lakh was allegedly used to purchase land in Goa. The court rejected Srivastava’s claim that the amount was a loan, noting that no loan documents or repayment records had been produced.
The prosecution further relied on WhatsApp communications between Srivastava and alleged cash couriers, including messages relating to his official vehicle and residence, and alleged deletion of chats. The court said the material could not be disregarded at the bail stage.
Rejecting the bail plea, the court said the possibility of Srivastava influencing witnesses could not be ruled out given his previous administrative authority. It also held that his medical and family circumstances did not outweigh the material against him.
The court accordingly dismissed his first regular bail application.
