The Delhi High Court recently denied bail to four men accused of orchestrating a digital arrest fraud that coerced a senior citizen into transferring ₹22.92 crore to them.
Justice Manoj Jain, while dismissing both regular and anticipatory bail pleas before him, held that the case involved a layered conspiracy, with several suspects yet to be apprehended and the defrauded money still untraced. The Court noted that the complete picture would emerge only during further investigation and trial.
Further refusing to accept the defence that the accused were merely facilitators or unaware participants, it noted,
"At this stage, the applicants cannot be dubbed as victims or minor players or mere holders or providers of mule accounts. Their roles cannot be characterized as mere peripheral. They seem to be important cogs of the conspirational wheel. The wheel would not have moved, without their involvement. Any compassion to the applicants, at this stage, may hamper the ongoing investigation, which has been recently taken over by CBI.”
The case stems from a complaint by a man in his late seventies who alleged that he received a call from persons posing as telecom officials and was later connected to individuals claiming to be law enforcement officers.
The man was told that his identity had been used in financial crimes and was placed under a digital arrest, where he was isolated and kept under continuous video monitoring while being threatened with legal consequences.
The complainant alleged that he had ultimately transferred ₹22.92 crore under coercion over several weeks, of which ₹1.90 crore was routed through a bank account linked to one of the accused.
According to the prosecution, part of the defrauded amount was routed through a bank account linked to one of the accused and quickly transferred to other accounts. Investigators alleged that multiple individuals were involved in handling these bank accounts and mobile connections used to move the funds to the mule accounts.
The accused in this case contended that their role was limited to sharing bank account or mobile details, that they were not beneficiaries of the alleged fraud and that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence.
Those seeking anticipatory bail also argued that they had earlier joined the investigation under interim protection and were being implicated mainly on the basis of statements made by co-accused.
Addressing the nature of such offences, the Court observed,
“The case in hand pertains to digital arrest and these matters have to be dealt with extra sensitivity and different approach as these offences not only erode the public trust and confidence but impact the entire Society. Such type of incidents, where taking undue advantage of the susceptible nature of senior citizens they are coerced and duped through digital arrest, are on the rise.”
The Court also noted that custodial interrogation may be required to trace the flow of funds and identify others involved, particularly given the nature of digital evidence. It observed that case of digital arrests form part of a broader pattern.
“The offence in question is an organized crime, having massive societal impact. Every player, participating in a scam related to digital arrest, plays pivotal role, in one way or the other,” said the Court.
Advocates Mohit Chaudhary, Kunal Sachdeva, Lakshay Yadav, Arjun Singh Bhati, Sajal Sinha, Dhruv Sharma and Puneet B and Shivam Verma appeared for the accused.
Advocates Anupam S Sharma, Abhiyant Singh, Vashisht Rao and Amisha P Dash appeared for the State.
Advocates Nupur Sharma, Manan P, Apurva Gaur, Mohit Kumar Bansal and Priya Tripathi represented the complainant.
[Read Order]