An official who authorised prosecution in the UCO Bank Mathura bribery case testified before a special Central Bureau of Investigation court in Ghaziabad on 5 November 2026, local reporting says. The trial remains at the witness-evidence stage; the allegations have not been adjudicated.
What happened in the Ghaziabad courtroom
A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Ghaziabad heard prosecution evidence on Thursday, 5 November 2026, in a case linked to a UCO Bank cash-credit facility in Mathura. According to Amar Ujala’s local court report, UCO Bank headquarters official Rajesh Nagar, who had authorised prosecution, appeared and gave his statement. The report identifies the presiding judicial officer as Bharat Singh Yadav and says witness examination was continuing. It does not provide a verified date for the next hearing.
The allegations behind the case
The dispute concerns a cash-credit limit of ₹1 crore reportedly sanctioned for a Mathura flour-milling firm. According to the prosecution account reported by Amar Ujala, ₹90 lakh had been transferred while the remaining ₹10 lakh had not been released. The CBI alleged that the bank’s then senior manager, Garima Singh, demanded ₹4 lakh to release the balance.
The same account says the CBI conducted a trap operation in September 2025 after a complaint. Investigators alleged that the first instalment of ₹2 lakh was received by the then manager and a private associate, Arif Muhammad. The two were arrested during the operation, according to the report. These are prosecution allegations, not facts determined by a final judgment.
What changed from the earlier court stage
On 12 October 2026, Amar Ujala reported that the special court was hearing arguments concerning proceedings against the two accused. The newspaper’s 5 November report states that charges have since been framed and prosecution witnesses are now giving evidence. The testimony of the official connected with prosecution sanction is the latest reported procedural development, rather than a new arrest or a judgment.
Legal status and outstanding questions
Framing a charge allows the trial to proceed; it does not prove the alleged offence. The original signed court order and witness deposition were not independently available for this report. The newspaper accounts also do not establish a conviction, a final assessment of the evidence or any bank-wide disciplinary outcome. The accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence while the case remains pending.
The case concerns alleged conduct in the handling of an individual credit facility. No conclusion about UCO Bank’s other credit operations follows from these proceedings. Further reporting should be assessed against the court’s actual orders and future testimony rather than rumours or claims that the case has already been decided.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion