Supreme Court Issues Notice On Ex-Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti's Plea To Stay Conviction In Bank Fraud Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on an appeal filed by former Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti against the Delhi High Court's ruling refusing to stay his conviction in the Gram Vikas Bank fraud case.
Bharti was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for conspiracy, cheating, and forgery over the fraudulent extension of a fixed deposit.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice and posted the matter for hearing after 4 weeks.
In its July 10 judgment, the High Court observed that the tenure of a fixed deposit held by Bharti's family trust had been repeatedly extended over more than a decade, enabling the trust to wrongfully receive interest.
The court further held that Bharti, while serving as the bank's Chairman, had prima facie abused his position to benefit his family's trust.
Earlier, on April 1, 2026, the trial court had convicted Bharti and co-accused Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery. On April 2, 2026, it sentenced Bharti to three years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh, while suspending the sentence for two months to enable him to file an appeal.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bharti, argued that the conviction rested only on the charge of criminal conspiracy and that the trial court had not held him directly responsible for cheating, forgery or any other substantive offence.
During the hearing, Sibal contended that the conviction deserved to be stayed as the trial court had convicted Bharti only under Section 120B IPC.
"What is surprising is that the trial court holds me liable for no offence under the Act. That is the subject matter of challenge in the appeal. ... That's why the conviction should be stayed, because the Special Court has not held me responsible for either cheating or forgery or any other offence, but held me under 120B. Held me under 120B," he submitted.
Referring to the prosecution's allegation that the fixed deposit had been impermissibly extended to earn excess interest, Sibal argued that similarly placed depositors had also received interest for comparable periods. "This matter stands settled... Kindly see the chart... So many people have got interest for 15 years. From their own showing... others have got interest for 15 years, which is permissible," he told the Court.
The Court then issued notice and granted four weeks' time for response.
Background
The case concerns allegations that Bharti conspired to cheat the Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank by fraudulently extending the tenure of a fixed deposit. The prosecution alleged that forged bank records were used to withdraw excess interest, causing wrongful loss to the bank and unlawful gain to the beneficiaries.
The case dates back to August 24, 1998 when Bharti's mother, Savitri Shyam, deposited ₹10 lakh in a fixed deposit with the cooperative bank for a period of three years. Investigators alleged that the deposit records were later forged to extend the tenure of the deposit, first to 10 years and then to 15 years. According to the prosecution, this enabled continued withdrawal of interest until 2011.
Following investigation and trial, a trial court on April 1, 2026, convicted Bharti and co-accused Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. The trial court held that they manipulated the bank's records and unlawfully obtained interest payments beyond the original tenure of the fixed deposit. On April 2, 2026, the trial court sentenced Bharti to three years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh. It suspended the sentence for two months to enable him to file an appeal before the High Court.
On appeal, the Delhi High Court on July 10 refused to stay the conviction of Rajendra Bharti for defrauding the Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank, holding that suspension of conviction is an exceptional relief and that no manifest illegality, perversity or patent error was discernible in the trial court's judgment at the prima facie stage.