Delhi HC denies bail to man in ₹1.3 crore digital arrest case

Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to Oma Kant Gupta, accused of cheating a woman of ₹1.3 crore via cyber fraud involving 'digital arrest.'

The Delhi High Court refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of cheating a woman of ₹1.3 crore by falsely placing her under digital arrest in a money laundering case.

Gavel and law books (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

In an order dated March 11, a bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the allegations relate to a serious case of cyber fraud involving “digital arrest”.

“The allegations against the applicant related to a serious instance of cyber fraud involving the modus operandi of so-called ‘digital arrest.’ Such offences are carried out through technological means to deceive and extort money from unsuspecting victims, as remarked by the Supreme Court. Such cases are increasingly being reported across the country,” the court said in its order.

The man, Oma Kant Gupta, had approached the high court seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered last year by the woman under sections 308(2) (extortion), 318(4) (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 319(2) (cheating by personation), 204 (personating a public servant), and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), along with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

In the FIR, the woman alleged that on March 15, 2025, she received a WhatsApp call from a person who claimed to be a surveillance officer and said her bank accounts were under court-ordered monitoring.

The FIR further added that during the call, other persons joined, claiming to be a CBI officer and a judge. They informed her that she was under digital arrest in a money laundering case. The fraudsters asked her to transfer ₹30 lakh and ₹80.10 lakh to two bank accounts in order to quash the money laundering case against her. She later lodged a complaint on the cyber helpline.

During the investigation, the police found that Gupta had received ₹30 lakh from the amount allegedly obtained through the fraud.

In his petition, the man, represented through advocate Divyakant Lahoti had asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case, was a victim of a conspiracy and had no role in the transactions of money which were credited to his bank account.

The Delhi Police, represented by additional public prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar opposed the petition, stating that although the police had issued him a notice to join the investigation, he did not comply. The man was a beneficiary of ₹30 lakh which was directly credited to his bank account as the first transaction from the complainant’s account. The prosecutor further said that Gupta’s custodial interrogation was thus required and the bail application deserved dismissal.