Summary of this article
The Bombay High Court rejected anticipatory bail in a Rs 4.03 crore scam case.
Police found Rs 4.03 crore deposited and withdrawn in a single day.
The Court ruled custodial interrogation essential for cyber networks.
The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has rejected an anticipatory bail plea of a person in a 7.17 crore digital arrest scam. Justice R.M. Joshi refused the pre-arrest protection (anticipatory bail) to the person whose bank account received a whopping Rs 4.03 crore that has been extorted from a doctor targeted in a digital fraud.
The court highlighted the alarming rise in digital fraud cases in India and emphasised custodial interrogation as indispensable to bust the financial networks that digital fraudsters use. The court also refused to accept the petitioner’s claims that the phone was hacked as he could not produce concrete evidence towards it. The court highlighted the severe national threat due to such scams and money-laundering channels that make the money trail difficult to trace.
The prosecution stems from an FIR, registered in Ahilyanagar district with punishable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The victim, a doctor by profession, was coerced into transferring a sum of Rs 7.17 crore during his digital arrest. During the investigation, the police found that Rs 4.03 crore of that payment was directly deposited into the account operated by the petitioner and withdrawn on the same day.
Arguments
The counsel for the application submitted that he (applicant) runs a charitable institution and was approached by one Vinit Shrivastava with a proposed Rs 20 lakh donation to his charitable institution. The court was informed that “in response thereof, he went to Delhi and poojas were performed for a period of five days. On 08.10.2026, he found that his mobile phone was hacked and the amount of Rs 4.03 crore came to be deposited into his account and was withdrawn on the same day, i.e., 09.10.2026.” This indicated that the applicant was not a perpetrator, but a victim.
The public prosecutor opposed the bail, pointing out that a competent court at Kanpur took cognisance and rejected the applicant’s appeal. The state counsel argued that withdrawing Rs 4.03 crore in a single day could not be possible without the applicant’s cooperation due to the transaction cap, as it involved a huge sum. Besides, the applicant didn’t cooperate and remained non-responsive to police notices.
Court’s Observation
Justice Joshi noted the seriousness of digital arrest offences and how cybercriminals route the fraud money systematically across multiple bank accounts to destroy the money trail. The court noted that accepting “any frivolous or afterthought explanation” would encourage such crimes.
It observed that the applicant did not provide any evidence to substantiate his phone hacking defence.
Court’s Judgment
Citing the Supreme Court guidelines, the court held that custodial interrogation was essential to investigate, get through to the criminal network, and identify the real culprits. The court found no grounds to safeguard the applicant’s liberty and dismissed the applicant’s plea for anticipatory bail.
