Bihar Depositors’ Scam Case: Apex Court Orders Bail, Directs Cooperation with Probe.


31 October 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Special Leave Petition >> Criminal Law  

Sonu Kumar alias Sonu Kumar Chaudhary was granted bail by the Supreme Court of India in a case registered under the Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2002, apart from several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to an FIR lodged at Bettiah Town Police Station, West Champaran, relating to misappropriation of public deposits collected through a cooperative society.

The prosecution contended that Sonu Kumar, in conspiracy with his family members, while operating under the banner "Swarn India Multi State Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.," had promised attractive returns to depositors. The money deposited by the public had been embezzled, and many criminal cases were registered against him and his associates.

 

 

The appellant, in custody since January 2024, moved the Supreme Court after the High Court of Patna had rejected his bail earlier this year. During the hearing, his counsel argued that he was neither a Director nor a signatory to the bank accounts of the Society. The State, however, contended that he was functioning as the Managing Director and was directly involved in the management and decision-making of the Society.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the investigation in the case was still ongoing and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude. Considering that the appellant had already undergone a substantial period in custody and custodial interrogation was complete, the Court thought it fit to grant bail at this stage.

The Court, setting aside the previous order refusing bail, ordered that the appellant be released on bail upon his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions imposed are that he shall share his contact information with the local police, cooperate with the investigation, and not leave the territorial limits of the State of Bihar without the prior permission of the learned court.

The Supreme Court also pointed out the duty of the appellant to cooperate with the investigating agency for the expeditious completion of the inquiry. With these directions, the appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were closed.

This order reflects the Court's continuing commitment to balance between personal liberty and the necessity of investigation, repeating that the pre-trial detention should not be extended indefinitely when the probe remains incomplete.