Raja Bihari: CBI arrests bank-fraud accused in Punpun

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it arrested Raja Bihari, an accused declared a proclaimed offender in a bank-fraud case, from Punpun in Bihar on 5 November 2026. The agency said he had avoided investigation and trial in a case in which it filed a chargesheet against 21 people on 30 October 2009.

In its statement dated 5 November 2026, the CBI alleged that Bihari obtained a loan from Allahabad Bank’s Patliputra Colony branch in Patna through a conspiracy involving bank officials and middlemen. The agency said forged title deeds, fabricated property documents and fake guarantor credentials were used to obtain the loan.

The arrest is the new development announced by the CBI. Its statement does not report a conviction or a decision establishing that the bank-fraud allegations have been proved.

The loan documents at the centre of the case

The CBI described the borrowing as a CC loan, or cash-credit loan. News Nation’s account also identified the facility as cash credit. In general banking usage, cash credit allows a borrower to draw funds within an approved limit, rather than describing a single fixed-sum disbursement. The statement does not disclose the terms of Bihari’s facility.

According to the CBI, the alleged fraud involved three types of supporting material: title deeds concerning property ownership, other property records and guarantor credentials. A guarantor undertakes responsibility for repayment under the terms of a guarantee if the borrower defaults; the agency alleged that the credentials presented in this case were fake.

The CBI’s account places the alleged involvement of bank officials and middlemen alongside the disputed documentation. It does not specify which documents Bihari allegedly prepared himself, identify the officials or middlemen, or describe their individual roles.

The agency said it registered the case against 21 accused, including Bihari, under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The former set out criminal offences and punishments, while the latter addresses corruption involving public servants. The statement does not identify the sections invoked, so it does not establish the precise offences alleged against each accused.

The release also gives no loan amount, estimate of the bank’s alleged loss or recovery figure. Those are distinct measures: an amount borrowed does not, by itself, establish how much a bank ultimately lost.

The chargesheet and the court proceedings

The CBI said its investigation led to the chargesheet against all 21 accused on 30 October 2009. A chargesheet sets out the investigating agency’s case for prosecution; it is not a judicial finding that the accused committed the offences.

According to the agency, the court took cognisance of the chargesheet on 12 November 2009. Taking cognisance means the court took judicial notice of the alleged offences for proceedings, rather than deciding guilt.

IANS, in a report carried by Punjab Kesari, identified that court as a Special CBI Court. The CBI’s own statement referred only to the court, without identifying its location or providing a case number.

The agency said Bihari did not join the investigation, had been absconding from the beginning and subsequently evaded trial. It said a competent court later declared him a proclaimed offender, but did not give the date of that declaration.

Both Lokmat Times’ IANS report and News Nation described Bihari as having evaded arrest for 18 years. The CBI statement does not specify when the case was registered or give a starting date for that period. Its dated procedural account begins with the 2009 chargesheet.

What the proclamation procedure involves

The court order declaring Bihari a proclaimed offender is not available in the supplied reporting. The description of his status therefore rests on the CBI’s statement, rather than a review of the reasons or directions in that particular order.

The broader procedure is explained in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. versus State of Bihar & Anr., bearing citation 2024 INSC 202. The available judgment extract, authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar, discusses Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which concerns proclamations for people absconding.

Section 82(1), reproduced in that judgment, permits a court to publish a written proclamation when it has reason to believe that a person against whom it issued a warrant has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. The proclamation requires appearance at a specified place and time, allowing at least 30 days from publication.

The Supreme Court explained that prior issuance of an arrest warrant is a prerequisite for initiating that procedure. It also said the magistrate must be satisfied that the person has absconded or concealed himself.

That explanation concerns securing a person’s appearance before the legal process. It does not determine the truth of the underlying bank-fraud allegations. The Supreme Court case was separate from Bihari’s, and the CBI release does not identify the provision used in his proclamation order.

Intelligence inputs led to the arrest

The CBI said a dedicated team traced and apprehended Bihari in Punpun after intelligence inputs and sustained efforts. It did not disclose further operational details.

The statement contains no response from Bihari to the allegations and does not set out the status of proceedings against the other accused. It also does not report his court production, any remand order determining custody, or a date for his next appearance.