Back
Slams Brakes on Bail in ₹22 Crore ' ' Heist Targeting Elderly Victim
In a resounding rebuff to pleas for freedom, the has denied bail to four men linked to a brazen cyber fraud that drained ₹22.92 crores from a senior citizen's life savings through a chilling " " ruse. Justice Manoj Jain dismissed applications for Ashok Kumar and Mohit, alongside requests from Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh, underscoring the scam's devastating societal ripple effects and the imperative of an ongoing probe.
From Legitimate Call to Virtual Chains: The Senior Citizen's Ordeal
Sh. Naresh Malhotra, a vulnerable man in his late seventies, fell prey on , to fraudsters posing as Airtel officials. They escalated the terror by switching to WhatsApp video, masquerading as officers, and accusing him of a ₹1,300 crore terror-funding scam. Under relentless psychological duress—threats of arrest, isolation, and national disgrace—he transferred funds in tranches from .
Of the colossal sum, ₹1.90 crores hit an IndusInd Bank account tied to M/s Hyrocial Facility Management Private Limited, directed by Mohit, and was withdrawn the same day, . Another ₹3.21 crores from other victims flowed through it too. Malhotra reported the fraud on , triggering FIR No. 85/2025 at under BNS Sections 308 (extortion by putting in fear), 318(4) (cheating), 319 (criminal breach of trust), and 340 (criminal forgery).
Accused Point Fingers, Claim Innocence Amid Family Woes
Defence lawyers painted their clients as minor cogs or outright victims. Mohit's counsel highlighted his clean record, six-month incarceration, completed investigation ( filed ), and peripheral role—merely lending his account for a commission. They invoked Sanjay Chandra v. (2012) and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) to argue bail isn't punishment, nor barred by offence gravity per Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980).
Ashok Kumar was portrayed as an illiterate farmer duped by associates, with no direct account link or knowledge of funds. Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh denied incriminating evidence, relying on co-accused disclosures and CCTV at a Greater Noida hotel; they noted prior interim bails and compliance with probes, citing recent orders like Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P. (2026).
Personal hardships amplified pleas: Mohit as sole breadwinner, Ashok's paralyzed wife and young kids.
Prosecution Fires Back: No Room for Mercy in Conspiracy Web
and complainant counsel, including , stressed the scam's enormity—no recoveries, funds laundered via mule accounts across banks. They linked accused via WhatsApp chats, shared credentials, hotel stays during transactions, and CDR/CCTV proof. Vipul misled on location; Himanshu dodged device surrender.
Drawing on 's in In Re: Victims of (W.P. (Crl.) 3/2025), they noted 's mandated primacy for such scams targeting seniors, with directions against premature bail. Defence countered these as case-specific, per State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka (2009).
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Every Cog Counts in Cyber Conspiracies
Justice Jain acknowledged precedents but refused mechanical application, deeming cases demand "extra sensitivity." He rejected victim claims: Mohit's account handled ₹5+ crores across scams; chats showed tandem with Ashok; all stayed together during siphoning. Vipul and Himanshu's custody vital for fragile digital evidence, per State v. Anil Sharma (1997).
The judge branded it "organized crime" with "massive societal impact," where roles aren't peripheral—mule providers enable the wheel. With newly involved and conspiracy unfolding, bail risks hampering probes.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Sh. Naresh Malhotra, a senior citizen in his late seventies, is, yet another, victim of ‘’."
"Such type of incidents... are on the rise...scams clearly demanded the urgent attention of the country’s leading investigative agencies and accordingly,() was directed to be the primary agency..."
"Every player, participating in a scam related to, plays pivotal role, in one way or the other... They seem to be important cogs of the conspirational wheel."
"Digital evidence is fragile by nature and can be easily manipulated and destructed and, therefore, custody... looks indispensable."
Final Verdict: Bail Pleas Booted, Probe Presses On
"All the four bail applications are accordingly dismissed,"
ruled Justice Jain on
, clarifying observations as tentative. This sets a firm precedent against leniency in
frauds, prioritizing
-led unravelling of pan-India networks and victim restitution. As media echoes—like reports of the court's nod to "massive societal impact"—it signals zero tolerance for scams preying on the elderly, potentially tightening bail norms nationwide.
