It is definitely by any measure most commendable that while cracking the whip in the Rs 22.92 crore digital arrest scam case and dismissing the bail applications of four accused who orchestrated the digital arrest fraud by coercing the senior citizen into transferring the huge amount, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ashok Kumar vs State of NCT of Delhi in BAIL APPLN. 40/2026, BAIL APPLN. 133/2026 BAIL APPLN. 226/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 243/2026 and so also cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:3358 that was reserved on 17.04.2026 and then was finally pronounced on 22.04.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to underscore that every player participating in such a scam plays a pivotal role. It must be noted that the Delhi High Court also made it indubitably clear that digital arrest cases have to be dealt with extra sensitivity as such offences not only erodes public trust and confidence but also impacts the entire society. It also merits mentioning that the Delhi High Court while considering the bail applications noted that in such cases, the modus operandi is complex and complicated.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Jain sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Sh. Naresh Malhotra, a senior citizen in his late seventies, is, yet another, victim of ‘digital arrest’.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 stating that, “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”.”
While elaborating on the facts of the case, the Bench then lays bare in para 3 disclosing that, “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.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “The total transferred amount is Rs. 22.92 crores.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in para 5 that, “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.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 that, “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).”
As things stands, the Bench clarifies in para 7 stating that, “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.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench then lays bare in para 8 disclosing that, “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.”
Delving deeper, the Bench then further lays bare in para 9 revealing that, “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.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 10 that, “During interrogation, the mobile device of accused Ashok Kumar was scrutinized which revealed WhatsApp chats between him and Mohit and also one Samreet Singh.”
Further, the Bench then unfolds in para 11 pointing out that, “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 available and had absconded.”
Furthermore, the Bench then reveals in para 12 stating that, “During police custody remand, accused Mohit, Ashok and Samreet identified photograph of Himanshu Singh (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 243/2026) and claimed that they all had stayed together in a Hotel in Greater Noida, UP at the time of alleged offences and transactions. Accused Samreet also disclosed that Himanshu Singh was the one who had added beneficiaries in the aforesaid account of IndusInd Bank wherein Rs. 1.90 crores had been received and thereafter siphoned off. Accused Amit @ Bobby also disclosed that at instructions of accused Himanshu, he had deleted the WhatsApp chats between him and Himanshu, Nitin and Vipul Rana.”
Still more, the Bench then observes in para 13 that, “ During police custody remand, accused Mohit, Ashok and Samreet identified photograph of Himanshu Singh (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 243/2026) and claimed that they all had stayed together in a Hotel in Greater Noida, UP at the time of alleged offences and transactions. Accused Samreet also disclosed that Himanshu Singh was the one who had added beneficiaries in the aforesaid account of IndusInd Bank wherein Rs. 1.90 crores had been received and thereafter siphoned off. Accused Amit @ Bobby also disclosed that at instructions of accused Himanshu, he had deleted the WhatsApp chats between him and Himanshu, Nitin and Vipul Rana.”
Frankly speaking, the Bench then specifies in para 14 stating that, “Presently, we are concerned with regular bail applications of applicant Ashok Kumar and Mohit who were arrested on 24.09.2025 and also with the applications of applicants Vipul Rana and Himanshu who seek anticipatory bail.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 27 that, “There cannot be any qualm with respect to the precedents cited at the Bar. However, these precedents cannot be applied mechanically and have to be appreciated in the factual backdrop of a given case, as a slight change in facts can twist the entire complexion of the case. The Court is also cognizant of the fact the case in hand pertains to digital arrest and these matters have to be dealt with extra sensitivity and different approach as these offences not only erode the public trust and confidence but impact the entire Society.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 28 that, “Such type of incidents, where taking undue advantage of the susceptible nature of senior citizens they are coerced and duped through digital arrest, are on the rise. Hon’ble Supreme Court, while taking suo moto cognizance, observed that there can indeed be no manner of doubt that every type of cybercrime resulting in victim deception, especially involving senior citizens, required specialised investigation. It supplemented that digital arrest scams clearly demanded the urgent attention of the country’s leading investigative agencies and accordingly, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was directed to be the primary agency to investigate cases reporting digital arrest scams. It was also given free hand to investigate, including into the role of bankers and the opening of mule accounts, and to undertake coordinated action on a pan-India basis.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 30 that, “Though the chargesheet qua some of the accused has been filed, but investigation is still underway. The cheated money is yet to be recovered and applicant Mohit cannot seek bail, merely for the reason that chargesheet has been filed. He cannot claim that he was trapped and that he, too, was a victim. He seems to have shared his login credentials, while being mindful about the consequences thereof, even if he expected handsome commission in lieu thereof. The amount of Rs. 1.90 crores landed in his account in terms of tacit understanding only and in furtherance of conspiracy. It also moved out from his account in terms of conspiracy. Moreover, his account is in receipt of another sum of Rs. 3.21 crores which indicates that others, too, have been cheated. His account, as per chargesheet, is found involved in two other cyber-crimes. He is in touch with other accused, including Ashok Kumar. The mobile device of Ashok Kumar has whatsapp chats with Mohit and indicates that they were working in tandem and in terms of conspiracy, Mohit had shared login credentials with Ashok. Accused Samreet, the alleged account aggregator, got these confidential details from Ashok Kumar. His mobile phone was seized and the whatsapp chats show that he was in touch with Ashok Kumar, Amit Kumar @ Bobby and Vipul Rana.”
Most rationally, the Bench points out in para 31 that, “Accused Vipul Rana also tried to mislead the police by claiming that he remained in Delhi at the relevant time. However, as per CCTV footage and his CDR, he was present with his co-accused at Hotel in Noida at the relevant time. Vipul Rana claimed that he had only two mobile numbers and gave numbers of such mobile phones but his co-accused Samreet revealed his another number. His custodial interrogation would, thus, be imperative to reach the truth and to unveil the conspiracy. Similarly, accused Himanshu needs to be interrogated thoroughly as his presence at the Hotel at the relevant time stands established but he has yet not provided his mobile device. Digital evidence is fragile by nature and can be easily manipulated and destructed and, therefore, custody of Vipul Rana and Himanshu looks indispensable. Moreover, in State (Represented by CBI) v. Anil Sharma:(1997)7 SCC 187, Hon’ble Supreme Court found force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order and well-protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail and, therefore, such person can afford to elude investigating agency.”
Do further note, the Bench notes in para 32 that, “The offence in question is an organized crime, having massive societal impact.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 33 that, “Every player, participating in a scam related to digital arrest, plays pivotal role, in one way or the other.”
Most significantly and most remarkably, the Bench then encapsulates in para 34 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Of course, at times, the court may be tempted to adjudge individual role but in a case of present nature, where the modus operandi is complex and complicated and other conspirators are yet to be arrested and the cheated money is yet to be recovered, the exact picture would emerge during further investigation and trial only. At this stage, the applicants cannot be dubbed as victims or minor players or mere holders or providers of mule accounts. Their roles cannot be characterized as mere peripheral. They seem to be important cogs of the conspirational wheel. The wheel would not have moved, without their involvement. Any compassion to the applicants, at this stage, may hamper the ongoing investigation, which has been recently taken over by CBI.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 35 that, “In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit or substance in any of the applications. Applicant Ashok Kumar and Mohit do not deserve to be enlarged on regular bail, at this initial juncture. Applicant Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh have also not been able to disclose any ground which may compel this Court to release them on anticipatory bail.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 36 that, “All the four bail applications are accordingly dismissed.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by clarifying in para 37 holding that, “Needless to emphasize, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and these may not be taken as final expression on merits of the case.”
Author Bio
