By – Adv. Vijay Chauhan1, Adv Abhijeet Singh Yadav2 & Adv. Shweta Upadhyay3
I. Introduction
In the era of digitalization, society is persistently achieving new heights of standard of living; however, the same is also creating a huge block in the day-to-day life of the common populace. Through the use of digital devices and constantly evolving technologies, criminals have found new ways to obstruct the process of societal development. The criminals are not only well-equipped with advanced technologies, but they are also perpetrating crimes in the most organized manner, which ultimately poses a challenge for our system to fight back. Although our legal system has already enhanced its capabilities to combat certain types of cybercrimes, the pace of acquiring those capabilities is very slow, rendering criminals a good chance to organize such crimes more effectively via computers and digital devices. Today, one can name a type of crime, and it can be easily perpetrated with the use of digital devices. From crimes against the state to offenses against women, all are being committed via cyber modes. One such digitally organized crime is ‘cyber-fraud,’ which has already been deeply impacting individuals as well as businesses.
Recent trends suggest that the perpetrators of cyber-fraud are targeting every sector, section, and age group where no one can find an easy way out of their grip. By the time the victim senses foul play or a scam being perpetrated upon him/her, the scammers have already caused great damage to the victim’s bank balance and reputation. Digital arrests, loan frauds, UPI scams, fake trading mobile applications and websites, job opportunities, freelancing work, bank frauds, and fake legal notices and court summons are some of the most commonly used methods in cyber-fraud. In 2025, we have already heard a caller tune in the voice of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan, which can be marked as a campaign by state agencies to spread awareness about cyber – frauds and digital arrests. Not only have government agencies initiated such campaigns, but the judiciary in different states has also refused relief to persons accused of allegations of cybercrime, considering its overall impact on society, prima facie and strong evidence. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the accused persons who sought bail in a digital arrest matter4 and observed that “…cyber-crimes are rampant in our society and must be curbed. Cyber-crime in our country is like a silent virus: stealthy, disruptive, and costing society more than just money, but trust, security, and progress.” In addition to this, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has also denied relief to accused persons in a bail matter5 where it was alleged that the victim was duped by scammers impersonating CBI officials and the Chief Justice of India.
II. The Questions
Since we have sufficiently delved into the generic complexities posed by cyber fraud, we shall now discuss the solutions, specifically in the legal domain, to address the menace of cyberfraud. As they always suggest, precaution is better than the cure, so activating some safety measures on your digital device may lead you to safer ground. Sometimes, people approach banks to seek help in such matters, and to some extent, they succeed in keeping scammers away from their bank accounts. Another suggestive method is to act vigilantly when any such crime or fraud is perpetrated against a person; however, all these methods may or may not work in his or her favour. For instance, the Delhi High Court ordered SBI Bank to refund a person who did not share the OTP, but whose phone was cloned by scammers solely due to his faults6. Thus, the ultimate option available to a victim is to take the assistance of law enforcement agencies at the earliest during or after the perpetration of digital fraud. However, once the money is gone, there are still some questions left to be answered, such as, ‘What about the money that has been defrauded from a victim?’ or ‘When and how can this defrauded money be received back by the victim?’ or ‘Is the court procedure capable of providing quick relief to the victims in such matters?’
III. The Law
To explore the answers to the aforementioned questions, we may look into the provisions of law which allows such a victim to receive a quick/ monetary relief in his favor. Section 503 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 categorically mentions that if a property has been seized by any police officer followed by the same is reported to a Magistrate and if such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make the order for the disposal/ delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The law, as explained above, is clear and simple in language and the procedure but, due to unique defrauding strategies employed by the scammers, the judiciary is also struggling to frame proper guidelines governing ‘the release of the defrauded fund in favour of the victim’. The scammers are also capitalizing on it in the absence of such guidelines being passed by the State or Central government. Moreover, a recent case (or may be a future trend) came to the light through various media platforms when the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal7 filed by the father of an accused against his detention under a preventive detention law thereby indirectly supporting the application of strong and strict laws to curb the menace of the cyber-fraud. Finally, with respect to the legal provisions for culpability and procedure used for tackling down the cyber-frauds, the law enforcement agencies refer to various sections under The Information Technology Act, 2000 and The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
1. The Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction for investigating a cybercrime is intentionally flexible to address the multi-locational nature of such offenses, allowing an FIR to be registered in various relevant locations. An investigation can be initiated by the police station with jurisdiction over the area where the victim’s bank account is held, providing a clear starting point for cases of illegal fund withdrawal. For offenses spanning multiple areas or where the location is uncertain, any police station connected to the crime-such as where the criminal operated or where funds were transferred-can take the case. Furthermore, jurisdiction covers situations where an act is committed in one place, but its effect is felt elsewhere, like a social media post, allowing police in both the origin and the location of impact to investigate. In cases of criminal conspiracy, the investigation can be initiated either at the place where the conspiracy was planned or where the resulting crime was committed. Furthermore, when the internet and mobile phones are used, jurisdiction extends to both the place where the communication was sent and where it was received, such as when an OTP is fraudulently obtained from a victim in another city8.
2. The Investigation
Upon the registration of a cybercrime case, the investigating officer prioritizes stopping further financial loss. This is achieved by immediately contacting the concerned bank to freeze the victim’s account. Simultaneously, the officer must gather initial evidence by obtaining the ‘account details’ of both the victim’s account and the fraudulent accounts to which money was transferred. Technical data like Call Detail Records (CDRs), Customer Application Forms (CAFs), and IP addresses from the relevant internet and telecom service providers are also required to be gathered upon the initiation of the investigation. To ensure evidence is legally sound for court , the investigating officer follows a formal process. This involves obtaining certified copies of bank account statements under the Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891. If a bank is uncooperative, the investigating officer can use a court order under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to compel the release of these documents. The investigation also focuses on identifying all involved parties. If a fraudulent account was opened without proper KYC (Know Your Customer) verification, bank officials could face conspiracy charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Similarly, individuals who lend their bank accounts and ATMs for criminal use can be prosecuted as accomplices.
3. The Procedure
Notwithstanding the above-noted complexities surrounding the whole scenario, the answer to the question of recovering money is still a big ‘Yes’. The legal procedure, although requiring a heavy crackdown on the perpetrators of this organized crime, is very flexible and simple for the victims. The victim is required to file his complaint at the Police Station in the form of an FIR or a complaint on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP), from where the investigating agencies will start investigating his claims and allegations. The Police/Investigating Agencies endeavour to trace every link to reach the money that has been defrauded from the victim, and soon, when the investigating authority freezes the amounts in different bank accounts of the scammers, or, for some valid reasons, the bank accounts of persons other than the victims and scammers, any lawful owner of the amount in custody may approach the court seeking the release of his duly owned amount from the frozen bank accounts.
It has been observed by the courts that due to lethargic and routine investigation methods, the police generally mark a lien on any account in which the money is traceable, and this sometimes causes problems for account holders who are genuinely not involved in the fraud, as their accounts are put on hold for receiving petty amounts like Rs. 200/-. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has recommended that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, develop a uniform policy and standard operating procedures (SOPs) in collaboration with all stakeholders, including State/UT law enforcement agencies, emphasizing that a bank account should not be entirely frozen solely due to a suspicious transaction unless the account holder is proven to be complicit in a crime. The Court further remarked that “the possibility of marking a lien on disputed amounts, whenever identifiable, should be explored as a more appropriate interim measure.9”
As already mentioned, the Court may release the amount as per the provisions of law through an order, which is later required to be forwarded to the banks and the investigating authorities, directing the release of the concerned amount in favour of the victim. However, this is still not an easy task, as the legal procedure allows the release of money only after a sufficient surety, based on the order, is furnished in the court. It is also important to highlight here that, due to a lack of uniform guidelines/directions, the money is allowed to be released on the basis of the ‘first come, first serve’ rule thereby making the procedure for releasing the money more harsh for some victims10. It is also notable that various courts are passing release orders based on the aforesaid rule to bring uniformity to the procedure of releasing the amount involved in the cyber-fraud. On the contrary, when another question regarding ‘if justice is being upheld in such matters?’ is asked, the only answer to it is again affirmative, but it will come at the cost of time for which the victim must wait to see the actual offender getting convicted in the court.
Notes:
1 Partner, Virtuous Law Partners.
2 Partner, Virtuous Law Partners.
3 Partner, Virtuous Law Partners
4 Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P., Crim. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 9025 of 2025, 2025 AHC 84317 (All. H.C. May 20, 2025), https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?tra nslatedJudgmentID=35691
5 Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea in ₹7 Crore Cyber-Crime Through Fake Hearing Before Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, SCC Online (Feb. 24, 2025), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/02/24/p-h-hc-rejects-anticipatory-bail-accused-cybercrime-rs-7-crs-staging-hearing-before-d-y-chandrachud/
6 Upon Detecting Fraud, Bank Has Implied Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care and Take Prompt Action’; Delhi HC Directs SBI to Compensate Loss of Rs. 2.6 Lakhs Incurred by Cyber-Fraud Victim, SCC Online (Dec. 4, 2024), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/12/04/delhi-hc-directs-sbi-compensate-loss-2-6-lakhs-incurred-cyber-fraud-victim-upon-detecting-fraud-bank-implied-duty-reasonable-care-prompt-action/
7 Gurmukh Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP (Crl) No. 7442 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, Jul. 23, 2025), for media coverage, see Live Law News Network, ‘When Normal Laws are Unsuccessful…| Supreme Court Lauds Tamil Nadu for Using Preventive Detention Against Cyber Offenders’, LiveLaw (Jul. 23, 2025), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/normal-laws-unsuccessful-supreme-court-lauds-tamil-nadu-for-using-preventive-detention-against-cyber-offenders-295528
8 Judicial Academy Jharkhand, Cyber Crimes: Investigation and Trial Under the Current Law (Oct. 2019), available at https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/05_reading_material.pdf
9 Delhi High Court Slams Indiscriminate Freezing of Bank Accounts; Calls for Policy Reform in Cyber- Crime Investigations, SCC Online (Mar. 1, 2025), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/03/01/delhi-high-court-freezing-bank-accounts-cyber-crime-policy-reform-legal-news/
10 YES BANK Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.MC. 6779/2024 (Delhi High Court Sept. 02, 2024), for a summary of the order and its public reporting, see Abhinav Garg, No SOP to Release Cyber Fraud Money, The Times of India, Sep. 2, 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/no-sop-to-release-cyber-fraud-money/articleshow/112976118.cms
