The Bombay High Court has rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by an individual whose bank account was credited with Rs 4.03 crore in connection with a major digital arrest fraud targeting a medical professional. Justice R M Joshi ruled that custodial interrogation is indispensable to uncover the syndicate behind the operation, noting that cyber fraudsters increasingly deploy multilayered bank transfers to frustrate law enforcement investigations.
The ruling, issued on October 5, addresses a case where an informant doctor was allegedly coerced under the pretext of a digital arrest into parting with a total of Rs 7.17 crore. State authorities revealed that Rs 4.03 crore of the extorted sum was directed straight into the applicant’s account before being withdrawn.
Court Warns Against Entertaining Afterthought Defences
In his order, Justice Joshi observed that economic offences involving digital arrests are expanding rapidly across the country. The bench highlighted that syndicates routinely move stolen proceeds through a maze of separate bank accounts, rendering financial trails extraordinarily difficult for investigators to reconstruct.
The court cautioned that entertaining delayed or frivolous excuses offered by individuals whose accounts receive crime proceeds would directly encourage cyber syndicates. Emphasising that the applicant actively operated the bank account that received Rs 4.03 crore, Justice Joshi found no justification to grant him protection from arrest.
Applicant Claimed Donation Offer and Device Compromise
Appearing for the applicant, advocate P R Dubey argued that his client was a victim of cybercrime rather than a co-conspirator. The defence stated that the applicant manages a charitable organisation and had been approached by a person identified as Vinit Shrivastava, who pledged a donation of Rs 20 lakh.
According to Dubey, the applicant shared his banking details solely to facilitate the promised donation. The defence claimed that on October 8, the applicant discovered his mobile phone had been hacked, coinciding with the simultaneous deposit and withdrawal of Rs 4.03 crore on that single day.
Prosecution Points to Transaction Caps and Defiance of Police Notice
Opposing any relief, Assistant Public Prosecutor R P Gour disputed the credibility of the applicant’s account, arguing that established banking caps on transaction counts and daily withdrawal limits make it practically impossible to liquidate Rs 4.03 crore within a single day.
Gour submitted that investigators have placed concrete material on record establishing the applicant’s link to the crime. The prosecution further highlighted the applicant’s adverse conduct, pointing out that he had failed to comply with an official inquiry notice issued by the investigating police station. The prosecutor added that a competent court in Kanpur had already taken cognisance of the matter and previously turned down a similar plea from the applicant.
Bench Dismisses Hacking Claim for Lack of Proof
The High Court completely rejected the applicant’s claim of mobile phone hacking, noting that the defence had failed to place any corroborating material on record to substantiate the alleged breach.
Justice Joshi stressed that accepting unverified hacking claims in digital fraud cases would severely compromise criminal inquiries, reiterating that interrogating the account holder in custody is critical to identify the ultimate perpetrators of the scam.
