The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused in a cyber fraud case involving a so-called “digital arrest”, observing that such technology-driven scams used to extort money from victims are increasingly being reported across the country. The court held that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary to uncover the full modus operandi and the broader conspiracy behind the alleged fraud.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in an order dated March 11, declined the accused’s plea for pre-arrest bail, noting that the allegations indicated a serious instance of cyber fraud executed through a scheme popularly described as “digital arrest”.
The court observed that such crimes involve fraudsters using technological tools and forged documents to deceive victims and extract large sums of money.
“Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against the applicant relate to a serious instance of cyber fraud involving the modus operandi of so-called ‘digital arrest’,” the court said.
The judge further noted that the Supreme Court has already taken suo motu cognizance of cases where victims are coerced through fabricated judicial orders and impersonation of law enforcement officials. In the present FIR, the victim has also been allowed to assist the Supreme Court as an intervenor in the proceedings related to such scams.
The court stressed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hamper the investigation.
“This court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to impede the investigation, particularly when custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to unearth the entire modus operandi and the larger conspiracy,” the order stated.
According to the complaint, the victim — a resident of Greater Kailash-I in Delhi — received a WhatsApp call on March 15, 2025 from a person claiming to be a surveillance officer who informed her that her bank accounts were under monitoring.
During the call, another individual allegedly posing as a Central Bureau of Investigation officer joined the conversation and told her she was under a “digital arrest” for alleged involvement in a money laundering case. The fraudsters also shared what they claimed to be an order from the Supreme Court.
The complainant further alleged that during a group video call, a person posing as a judge told her that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against her and instructed her not to speak to anyone or leave her house without permission.
Under this pressure, she was allegedly induced to transfer large sums of money to accounts specified by the fraudsters. On March 18, 2025, she transferred ₹30 lakh from her State Bank of India account to another bank account and later transferred an additional ₹80 lakh to another account.
She reported the incident on March 23, 2025 through the cyber helpline.
During the investigation, police found that the ₹30 lakh transfer was made to a bank account belonging to a firm allegedly linked to the accused.
The accused argued before the court that he had been falsely implicated and claimed he himself was a victim of a conspiracy. He contended that his email account had been hacked and that he had informed the bank about suspicious activity.
However, the High Court noted that the material collected during the investigation did not support his claims at this stage.
The court observed that ₹30 lakh had been credited to the accused’s account and was transferred to several other bank accounts on the same day, leaving only ₹6,722 in the account.
Investigators also found that a total of ₹98 lakh had been credited into the same account on the day of the offence and was immediately transferred to other accounts.
The court further recorded that four additional cyber fraud complaints had been registered in relation to the same bank account held in the name of the accused.
It also noted that on the date of the transaction, another mobile number allegedly used by the accused was active at the same location as the mobile number linked to the bank account in his name.
In view of these findings and the seriousness of the allegations, the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
