CBI nabs two bank fraud fugitives after 17 and 4 years on the run
Synopsis
Two bank fraud fugitives — one missing for 17 years, the other for 4 — were tracked down by the CBI in a single day, one from Delhi and one from Punjab. The cases, involving alleged losses of ₹65.90 lakh and ₹10.16 crore, also expose the troubling role of alleged bank insider collusion in one of the frauds.
Key Takeaways
The CBI apprehended two proclaimed offenders — Jitendra Kumar and Pooja Pahwa — on 25 August in separate bank fraud cases.
Jitendra Kumar had been evading authorities for 17 years ; he was arrested from Dwarka Mor, Delhi in a case involving an alleged loss of ₹65.90 lakh to GIC Housing Finance Limited .
Pooja Pahwa had been on the run for 4 years ; she was arrested from Ludhiana, Punjab in a case involving an alleged loss of ₹10.16 crore to Indian Overseas Bank .
A supplementary chargesheet in the Pahwa case names four bank officials for alleged conspiracy with the borrower.
Pahwa is currently in judicial custody ; Kumar is to be produced before the competent court.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 25 August apprehended two proclaimed offenders — Jitendra Kumar and Pooja Pahwa — in two separate bank fraud cases, ending fugitive runs spanning 17 years and 4 years respectively, the agency said in a statement. The arrests mark the culmination of sustained intelligence operations across Delhi and Punjab.
The Jitendra Kumar Case
Jitendra Kumar is accused of securing a home loan in 2002–03 on the basis of fake and forged salary certificates, allegedly causing a loss of ₹65.90 lakh to GIC Housing Finance Limited. The loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) almost immediately after disbursement, raising early red flags.
A chargesheet was filed against Kumar and 18 others in 2006. He stopped appearing before the court from 2009 onwards and was formally declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO) in 2013. After more than a decade of evasion, the CBI tracked him down and apprehended him from Dwarka Mor, Delhi on 25 August. He is set to be produced before the competent court for further proceedings.
The Pooja Pahwa Case
Pooja Pahwa faces allegations of diverting and misappropriating a cash credit facility availed through false and forged documents, resulting in a loss of ₹10.16 crore to the Indian Overseas Bank. The account was declared NPA in 2012, and Pahwa was chargesheeted along with 5 others in 2017.
A supplementary chargesheet was subsequently filed against four bank officials accused of conspiring with the beneficiary company and individuals — a detail that points to alleged insider complicity. Pahwa ceased appearing before the court from 2022 and was declared a Proclaimed Offender in 2023. She was apprehended earlier in August from Ludhiana, Punjab, following sustained intelligence gathering, and is currently in judicial custody.
Pattern of Evasion and CBI's Pursuit
Both cases illustrate a recurring pattern in white-collar crime prosecutions in India: accused individuals exploit procedural gaps to delay trial and eventually abscond, sometimes for over a decade. The CBI's success in both arrests underscores the agency's stated commitment to pursuing proclaimed offenders regardless of how long they remain at large.
Notably, the involvement of bank insiders in the Pahwa case — as alleged in the supplementary chargesheet — reflects a broader concern flagged by regulators about collusion between borrowers and lending institution staff in NPA-generating fraud schemes.
What Happens Next
Kumar will be produced before the relevant court, where trial proceedings that were stalled by his absence are expected to resume. Pahwa, already in judicial custody, faces ongoing trial proceedings. Both cases now move toward the evidentiary phase, with courts expected to determine bail and further hearing schedules.
Point of View
But they also expose a systemic failure: both accused spent years as proclaimed offenders while court proceedings stalled. India's NPA-linked fraud prosecutions routinely stretch over a decade, giving accused individuals long windows to abscond. The Pahwa case is particularly pointed — a supplementary chargesheet against four bank insiders suggests the fraud was enabled from within the institution, not just perpetrated from outside. Until lender-side accountability is pursued with the same vigour as borrower-side arrests, the structural incentive for collusion remains intact.
NationPress
25 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Who did the CBI arrest on 25 August in the bank fraud cases?
The CBI arrested Jitendra Kumar and Pooja Pahwa , both declared Proclaimed Offenders in separate bank fraud cases. Kumar was picked up from Dwarka Mor in Delhi after 17 years as a fugitive, while Pahwa was arrested from Ludhiana, Punjab, earlier in August after 4 years on the run.
What are the charges against Jitendra Kumar?
Jitendra Kumar is accused of obtaining a home loan in 2002–03 using fake and forged salary certificates, allegedly causing a loss of ₹65.90 lakh to GIC Housing Finance Limited. A chargesheet was filed against him and 18 others in 2006; he was declared a Proclaimed Offender in 2013 after failing to appear in court since 2009.
What fraud is Pooja Pahwa accused of?
Pooja Pahwa is accused of diverting and misappropriating a cash credit facility obtained through false and forged documents, allegedly causing a loss of ₹10.16 crore to Indian Overseas Bank. She was chargesheeted in 2017 and declared a Proclaimed Offender in 2023 after evading court proceedings since 2022.
Were bank officials also implicated in these cases?
In the Pooja Pahwa case, a supplementary chargesheet was filed against four bank officials for allegedly conspiring with the beneficiary company and individuals. No such insider charges have been reported in the Jitendra Kumar case.
What happens next in these cases?
Jitendra Kumar is to be produced before the competent court for further legal proceedings. Pooja Pahwa is already in judicial custody. Both cases are expected to move toward active trial, with courts set to schedule hearings following the resumption of stalled proceedings.
