Inmate in ₹3,700-Crore Scam Accused of Threatening High Court Judge Using Constable's Phone

LUCKNOW – In a startling case that exposes significant security vulnerabilities within the criminal justice system, Anubhav Mittal, the alleged mastermind behind a ₹3,700-crore online Ponzi scheme, has been accused of sending a death threat to a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court. The act, allegedly committed from within the custody of law enforcement, has not only resulted in new criminal charges against Mittal but has also implicated the police constable tasked with his security, raising profound questions about custodial protocols and the safety of the judiciary.

An FIR has been lodged against both Mittal, who is currently incarcerated in Lucknow Jail, and Police Constable Ajay Kumar. The charges include criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code and violations of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The incident underscores the escalating challenge of managing tech-savvy inmates and the potential for digital tools to be weaponized even by those behind bars.

---

A Calculated Act of Intimidation and Deception

The alleged events unfolded on November 4, when Constable Ajay Kumar was escorting Anubhav Mittal for a court hearing. According to the initial investigation, Kumar permitted Mittal to use his smartphone, purportedly to check the status of his ongoing cases. Mittal, however, is accused of exploiting this opportunity for a far more sinister purpose.

Investigators from the Cyber Cell and Crime Branch, who jointly probed the matter after the threatening email was received, claim that Mittal used the brief window of access to the constable's phone with calculated precision. As a senior police official reported to PTI, "Mittal allegedly used that window to secretly create a new email ID and set the threat message on an auto-send timer for the next morning."

The email, sent under a false identity, contained a direct and chilling message: a judge of the High Court's Lucknow Bench "was going to be murdered." The sophisticated use of a delayed-send timer was a deliberate tactic to obscure the origin and timing of the threat, complicating the immediate investigative trail.

The joint inquiry successfully traced the email's origin back to Constable Kumar's device, leading to the registration of the FIR against both the inmate and the officer.

Motive: A Plot to Frame a Fellow Inmate

The investigation has revealed a motive that adds another layer of legal complexity to the case: an alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice by framing a fellow prisoner. Police sources state that Mittal’s primary goal was not just to intimidate the judiciary but to falsely implicate another inmate, Anandeshwar Agrahari, who is jailed in a separate murder case.

"Mittal's motive was to implicate fellow inmate, a murder accused, due to personal enmity," police added. This alleged plot to manipulate the justice system from within prison walls highlights a premeditated effort to use a threat against a high-ranking judicial officer as a tool in a personal vendetta. For legal practitioners, this raises critical issues concerning evidence tampering, false implication, and the potential for a high-profile accused to continue orchestrating criminal conspiracies while in custody.

The development could have significant ramifications, potentially influencing proceedings in Agrahari's murder trial and certainly complicating the numerous cases against Mittal himself.

Legal and Systemic Implications

This incident is more than a standalone crime; it is a case study in the multifaceted challenges facing the modern Indian legal and penal systems.

1. Custodial Negligence and Police Accountability: The registration of an FIR against Constable Ajay Kumar is a crucial step but points to a larger systemic issue. The act of a constable allowing a high-profile inmate, particularly one accused of massive cyber fraud, to have unsupervised access to a personal, internet-enabled device is a catastrophic breach of protocol. It calls for an urgent review of the standard operating procedures for escorting prisoners, especially those with technical expertise. Legal experts will be closely watching the proceedings against Kumar to see the extent to which custodial negligence is prosecuted.

2. Threats to Judicial Independence and Security: A direct threat against a High Court judge is a grave assault on the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Such acts of intimidation are intended to create a climate of fear and undermine the impartial administration of justice. This incident will likely trigger renewed calls for enhanced security measures for judges, both physically and in the digital realm. The legal community must consider this not merely as a threat against an individual, but as an attack on the institution itself.

3. The Challenge of Tech-Savvy Inmates: Anubhav Mittal is not an ordinary accused. He is the central figure in a sprawling ₹3,700-crore cyber fraud that allegedly duped nearly seven lakh investors through a fake social media 'likes' scheme. His alleged ability to create a new email identity and schedule a future-dated threat in a matter of minutes demonstrates a level of technical proficiency that prison and law enforcement systems may be ill-equipped to handle. This case serves as a stark reminder that modern correctional and custodial practices must evolve to counter the threat posed by inmates who can exploit digital technology.

4. Complexities in Prosecution: The prosecution in this new case will face the task of proving intent and action beyond a reasonable doubt. Key evidence will include the digital forensic analysis of the constable's phone, data from email service providers, and potentially, testimony from other inmates or officials. The defense, in turn, is likely to scrutinize the chain of custody of the device and challenge the attribution of the act solely to Mittal. The dual accusation against both the inmate and the constable adds a unique dynamic to the legal strategy for all parties involved.

Background of the Accused

Anubhav Mittal was arrested by a Special Task Force in 2017 in connection with what is popularly known as the "Social Trade" scam. His Noida-based firm allegedly perpetrated a massive Ponzi scheme by luring investors with the promise of high returns for clicking on web links. He already faces an staggering 324 criminal cases related to this fraud, and his wife, Ayushi Mittal, and father, Sunil Mittal, are also co-accused and remain in judicial custody.

His history as a sophisticated operator in the digital domain lends credibility to the police's allegations that he possessed the skills to carry out the complex act of sending a timed, anonymous threat.

This latest development ensures that Anubhav Mittal will remain a figure of significant legal interest, not just for the scale of his alleged financial crimes, but for his audacious and dangerous alleged conduct while under the watch of the state. The case serves as a critical inflection point, demanding a rigorous re-evaluation of security protocols, police accountability, and the measures needed to protect the judiciary from intimidation in the digital age.