Back
Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Himanshu in ₹2.65 Crore Digital Arrest Fraud
Justice Sanjeev Narula of the has dismissed the plea of Himanshu, who was implicated in a ₹2.65 crore through the , ruling that is as important as identifying the callers.
The court observed that digital arrest scams involve of public authorities, , and rapid movement of money through multiple accounts. It stressed that individuals who handle the proceeds cannot be treated as during an ongoing investigation.
How the ₹2.65 Crore Fraud Unfolded
According to the , a senior citizen was contacted via Skype and telephone by persons impersonating officials from , , and the . The callers falsely claimed that the victim’s Aadhaar credentials were used in criminal activity and threatened him with arrest and harm to his family. Under this coercion, the complainant transferred ₹2.65 crore to accounts specified by the fraudsters.
Investigators traced ₹1.50 crore to an account belonging to and ₹1.15 crore to From the Waveland account, approximately ₹5.31 lakh was transferred to Himanshu’s account on . The amount was swiftly withdrawn or utilized, according to the prosecution.
Himanshu was not among the callers who threatened the victim. His alleged involvement emerged solely from the financial trail.
The Defense: A Genuine Mobile Phone Transaction
Himanshu’s counsel argued that the ₹5.31 lakh credit was payment for a involving the sale of nine mobile phones. They claimed that Himanshu had purchased the phones from a dealer in Bhiwani in and later sold them to a buyer named Dinesh at Karol Bagh. Invoices were produced, and the seller had joined the investigation.
The defense emphasized that Himanshu had clean antecedents, had joined the investigation when protected by court orders, and offered to deposit the entire ₹5.31 lakh during the pendency of the probe. They contended that no was required since the evidence was documentary and electronic, already in the hands of the investigating agency.
Court Flags Gaps in Commercial Explanation
Justice Narula found several inconsistencies in Himanshu’s account. The court noted that no written agreement, security, or contemporaneous communication supported the alleged sale to Dinesh. Himanshu could not provide Dinesh’s telephone number or any WhatsApp exchanges.
The investigating officer observed that Bill No. 771, which exceeded ₹5.30 lakh, was the only transaction of such magnitude in the bill book. The carbon impression appeared comparatively fresh, and the handwriting and ink differed from surrounding entries. The court stressed that the document’s authenticity remained a matter for investigation.
“The bill book does not readily dispel these doubts,” the court stated.
The absence of GST returns, income-tax returns, stock registers, delivery challans, transport receipts, and e-way bills further undermined the claim. The invoices issued to also lacked GST particulars.
Himanshu’s delivery account also faltered. Call detail records and location material did not place him in Delhi during the period he claimed to have supplied the phones. The investigating agency was unable to locate the establishment “ ” or the person named Hitesh at Gaffar Market.
Banking Pattern and Cooperation Questioned
The court noted that apart from the disputed credit, Himanshu’s account did not reflect transactions of comparable magnitude consistent with regular wholesale trading in mobile phones. The amount received was quickly withdrawn.
On cooperation, the court recorded that after the sessions court rejected , Himanshu did not appear on the next date, switched off his phone, and remained unavailable, leading to . He later joined under interim protection but did not make electronic devices available for forensic examination. When a notice under was sought to be served, he declined to acknowledge it.
“Attendance before the Investigating Officer, by itself, does not amount to full cooperation,” the court observed.
Not Routine
The court rejected the argument that was unwarranted. Citing , it noted that may be qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a person protected by .
Justice Narula found that the need for arose from identified gaps in the , the asserted commercial transaction, and the electronic evidence. The identities of Dinesh and Hitesh, Himanshu’s precise connection with , and the onward movement of the money remained unresolved.
Offer to Deposit Amount Insufficient
The court dismissed Himanshu’s offer to deposit ₹5.31 lakh, stating that the investigation was not a limited to that sum.
“This is not a limited to that sum. The investigation must determine how money traced to the alleged fraud reached the Applicant’s account, whether the transaction offered in explanation was genuine, and where the funds moved thereafter. A subsequent deposit cannot supply those answers,” the judgment read.
Precedents on
The court relied on the coordinate bench decision in , which observed that individuals involved in holding or providing cannot automatically be treated as minor or peripheral participants while the investigation is ongoing.
It also referred to the ’s proceedings , where the apex court designated the as the primary agency for investigating such cases and directed scrutiny of mule bank accounts on a pan-India basis.
Key Observations
“A digital-arrest fraud is ordinarily carried out through of public authorities, sustained and the swift routing of money through several accounts. Identifying those who receive, move or dissipate the funds may therefore be as important as identifying those who directly communicate with the victim.”
“The offer to deposit INR 5,31,168/- does not resolve any of these issues. This is not a limited to that sum.”
“ is not justified merely because the Investigating Agency asks for it. The need must arise from the facts of the case.”
“Attendance before the Investigating Officer, by itself, does not amount to full cooperation.”
Decision and Implications
The court dismissed the application under . It noted that the application was successive, with no change in circumstances after an earlier petition was withdrawn.
The ruling reinforces that in cases, investigators must follow the entire financial chain, and courts will scrutinize defenses that rely on unsubstantiated commercial transactions. Individuals whose accounts are used to receive or move stolen funds may face even if they did not directly communicate with victims.
All observations were made on a basis and will not influence the investigation or trial on merits.
