A magistrate court in Mumbai has rejected a plea of a couple, former officials of the New India Cooperative Bank, who were named in the Rs 122 crore alleged embezzlement case, calling their plea to appear virtually “abysmal entitlement”.

The court rapped the couple, saying their “convenient use” of the given reasons should “become a matter of case study”.

Hiren Bhanu and his wife, Gauri Bhanu, the former chairperson and vice-chairperson, respectively, of the bank, informed the court that they live in the United Kingdom and the investigators of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai police “have been in constant touch” with them over WhatsApp.

EOW claims that former officials of the bank, including the Bhanus, and the other arrested accused embezzled Rs 122 crore belonging to depositors from the vaults of two branches.

The couple relied on Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for trials, inquiries, and proceedings to be held in electronic mode, as well as on the Video Conferencing Rules of the Bombay High Court.

The court said the power to allow electronic proceedings is within the court’s discretion, based on the circumstances of the case.

“The accused herein are trying to twist the word ‘may’ used in this section and stated that it has to be read as ‘shall’ instead… It appears that the accused wants this Court to read the provision as per their convenience and wishes. Indeed, there has been technological advancement, and it has to be used to further the cause of justice. But it does not mean that it should be used to further the personal wishes of the accused,” A R Solapure, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), said in the order passed on April 18.

A proclamation against them in the case was issued in August 2025 after being named as accused.

In the plea, the Bhanus have sought a stay on the proclamation, saying that they left the country on January 26, 2025, part of a pre-planned schedule, without knowledge of the present crime and are unable to return due to the “hostile environment against them”.

“The entire application reeks of huge entitlement of these accused. They are putting forth a case of their personal difficulties and a so-called threat to their lives if they return to India. However, no such demonstration is on record, and rather this cannot be even a reason to avoid the appearance in person before this court,” ACJM Solapure said.

The court said that the proclamation against them was issued because they were avoiding the investigation and that they cannot claim ‘victimisation’. “Such a kind of abysmal entitlement shown by the accused cannot be entertained. If such kind of prayers are accepted, there will be no sanctity left in the investigation and the following trial,” the court said.