In organized 'digital arrest' cyber-fraud cases, bail is not granted mechanically; courts must consider the magnitude of the economic offense, the ongoing status of the investigation, the necessity of custodial interrogation for digital evidence recovery, and the active participation of the accused in the criminal conspiracy.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

JUDGMENT

MANOJ JAIN, J

1. Sh. Naresh Malhotra, a senior citizen in his late seventies, is, yet another, victim of ‘digital arrest’.

2. On 01.08.2025, he received a call on his landline from some unknown fraudsters who impersonated as Airtel officials. They told him that his Aadhaar credentials had been used for opening a fraudulent bank account in Mumbai and threatened to suspend his telecom and internet services, unless he consented to being connected with “Mumbai Police”.

3. Believing the call to be a genuine one, he agreed, and then he was instructed to shift to a WhatsApp video call and to isolate himself in a room. During video call, the fraudsters introduced themselves as CBI officials and told him that he was involved in a Rs.1,300/- crore bank fraud. He was confronted with arrest-warrant and apprised that he was involved in terror funding. He was subjected to continuous psychological coercion, including threats, intimidation, isolation and fear of a fabricated national-level scandal and was compelled to make multiple transfers to numerous accounts. These transfers made between 04.08.2025 to 04.09.2025 were, as alleged, totally, involuntary in nature, done under sustained duress and coercion.

4. The total transferred amount is Rs. 22.92 crores.

5. The abovesaid amount landed in various banks, including IndusInd Bank where a sum of Rs.1.90 crores was credited on 28.08.2025, and was also withdrawn same day.

6. The abovesaid incident of cyber fraud and digital arrest was reported to the police by Mr. Malhotra on 19.09.2025, which resulted in registration of FIR No.85/2025 by PS Special Cell, Delhi for offences under Section 308 /318(4)/319/340 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 383-389/420/416/419/470/471 IPC)

7. Presently, we are concerned with the abovesaid IndusInd Bank account where complainant Mr. Malhotra was made to transfer Rs. 1.90 crores, in two tranches.

8. During investigation, the abovesaid account was found in the name of M/s Hyrocial Facility Management Private Limited. There are two Directors in the abovesaid Company i.e. Mohit (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 133/2026) and one Rinku. The mobile number linked with the abovesaid bank account was found issued in the name of applicant Mohit.

9. Mohit was issued notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to join investigation and he, during investigation, disclosed the name of accused Ashok Kumar (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 40/2026) and divulged that Ashok Kumar had taken his account details, mobile number and was responsible for the fraudulent transactions in question. Accused Mohit led the police party to Ashok Kumar and both of them i.e. Mohit and Ashok Kumar were arrested on 24.09.2025. They both, however, also admitted that they had stayed together with other accused persons at the time of alleged fraudulent transactions in the abovesaid bank account.

10. During interrogation, the mobile device of accused Ashok Kumar was scrutinized which revealed WhatsApp chats between him and Mohit and also one Samreet Singh.

11. Samreet was also arrested and during his police custody remand, one more accused i.e. Amit Kumar @ Bobby was arrested. He was alleged to be the person who had obtained account details and SIM linked with IndusInd Bank from Samreet and provided those to accused Vipul Rana (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 226/2026). Police also suspected involvement of one Rohit and it raided the addresses of Rohit and Vipul Rana but they both were not avail