Subodh Kumar Rastogi: Four years in jail, Rs 30,000 fine

A CBI court in Lucknow convicted former Bank of Baroda branch manager Subodh Kumar Rastogi on 2 November 2026 and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30,000 in a bribery case, the Central Bureau of Investigation said. The case arose from a borrower’s complaint about payments allegedly sought in connection with a loan for expanding a solar lights business.

Rastogi was the manager of the bank’s Balrampur branch in Uttar Pradesh at the time of the alleged offences, according to the CBI. The Times of India, which reported the sentence on 4 November 2026, identified the forum as a special CBI court.

The sentencing was the new development in a prosecution that began in 2015. Hindustan Times reported that the CBI announced the outcome in a press note issued on Tuesday. The agency’s statement gives the date of the court’s decision as 2 November, rather than the date on which the newspaper reports appeared.

The loan and the payments alleged in the complaint

The CBI said it registered the case on 26 October 2015 after receiving the borrower’s complaint. According to the agency’s account of that complaint, Bank of Baroda had sanctioned Rs 5 lakh for the business expansion.

The complaint described two separate instances in which Rastogi allegedly sought or received money. While disbursing Rs 1.25 lakh as a term loan, he allegedly collected about Rs 25,000 on the pretext of CA charges, stamp paper charges and file charges, the CBI said. A term loan is lending repayable over an agreed period.

The agency’s statement does not expand the abbreviation CA or explain how those charges were presented to the borrower. Secondary accounts use different expansions: The Times of India described it as a certificate of account, while an IANS report published by Punjab Kesari described chartered accountant fees. The available CBI wording does not resolve that difference.

The CBI said the complainant subsequently received Rs 3.75 lakh in his account as a cash credit limit. Cash credit is a borrowing facility under which a customer can draw funds within an approved limit, rather than a separate grant of money.

Rastogi then allegedly demanded a further Rs 25,000 as a bribe and threatened to close the account if the borrower did not pay, according to the agency’s account of the complaint. The alleged demand therefore concerned continued access to the account after the lending had been approved, not merely an application awaiting sanction.

The agency said it arranged a trap and caught Rastogi accepting Rs 10,000 from the complainant as an illegal payment. A trap is an investigative operation intended to observe and gather evidence of the alleged transaction.

That amount was distinct from both the earlier sum allegedly collected as charges and the subsequent bribe demand described in the complaint. The CBI statement does not give the date of the trap or explain the difference between the amount demanded and the amount it said Rastogi accepted.

After completing its investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Rastogi on 18 December 2015. A chargesheet sets out the investigating agency’s accusations for prosecution; it is not itself a finding of guilt. The CBI said the court convicted and sentenced him after the trial.

What the available records establish about the conviction

The trial court’s judgment was not available for this report. The CBI’s statement establishes the agency’s account of the conviction and sentence, but does not identify the judge, the statutory provisions under which Rastogi was convicted or the court’s reasons for imposing the punishment.

It also does not set out the defence arguments or explain how the court assessed the separate allegations. The complaint’s account and the agency’s description of its trap should therefore not be treated as a substitute for the court’s detailed findings.

The IANS report published by Punjab Kesari described the punishment as rigorous imprisonment, a form of imprisonment involving labour. The CBI statement specifies imprisonment without that qualification. Without the sentencing order, the more specific description cannot be established from the agency’s announcement alone.

The distinction between an investigative account and judicial reasoning matters in bribery prosecutions. In its judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), the Supreme Court discussed the proof required under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as they stood before amendment.

The available extract, written by Justice Nagarathna for a five-judge Constitution Bench, explains that mere acceptance or recovery of money, without proof of demand, would not suffice to establish the charges under the provisions being considered. That discussion provides legal context; the supplied material does not establish that the Lucknow court relied on this judgment.

The Supreme Court discussed Section 7, which addressed a public servant accepting or seeking gratification other than lawful remuneration as a motive or reward for an official act. In plain terms, the provision concerned an unauthorised benefit linked to the exercise of official functions, not every receipt of money by a public servant.

It also examined Section 13(1)(d), concerning the obtaining of a valuable thing or financial advantage through corrupt or illegal means, abuse of public office, or the other circumstances specified in that provision. The court distinguished obtaining such an advantage from merely accepting money.

Those explanations cannot establish which offences were proved against Rastogi: neither the CBI announcement nor the supplied news reports identify his conviction sections. They also provide no account of witness testimony, documentary evidence or his response to the prosecution’s allegations.

Neither the CBI statement nor The Times of India report specifies whether Rastogi has appealed or whether any order has been made suspending his sentence pending an appeal.