Delhi high court rejects anticipatory bail plea for ‘digital arrest’ accused

Justice Sharma said the allegations relate to a “serious instance of cyber fraud” in which technological means are used to deceive unsuspecting victims

The Delhi high court has rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man whose bank account was used to deposit funds received from a “digital arrest” victim, observing that his custodial interrogation was required to unearth the entire modus operandi.

The Delhi police opposed the anticipatory bail application pointing out that the applicant had not joined investigation so far

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that about ₹1.5 crore had been credited to and withdrawn from the bank account of the applicant, Om Kant Gupta, between September 2024 and March 2025, without any complaint being lodged by the applicant during that period, which, prima facie, belies the claim made by his lawyer Divyakant Lahoti, that he was unaware of the transactions taking place in his account.

In an order dated March 11, justice Sharma also underscored that the allegations relate to a “serious instance of cyber fraud” in which technological means are used to deceive unsuspecting victims and extort money from them.

“Such offences are carried out through technological means to deceive and extort money from unsuspecting victims, as noticed by the Supreme Court. Such cases are increasingly being reported across the country,” the court said. The order was released on Thursday.

The Delhi police, represented by additional public prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, opposed the anticipatory bail application, reasoning that the police had issued notice to Gupta to join the investigation last year but he hadn’t complied.

The case was registered on a complaint by a woman in south Delhi’s Greater Kailash, alleging that she received a call over WhatsApp on March 15, 2025, accusing her of money laundering. The man, who identified himself as a surveillance officer, also told her that she was under “digital arrest” on orders of the Supreme Court and coerced her into transferring ₹1.3 crore into two bank accounts.

One of the two bank accounts that received ₹30 lakh was operated by the applicant. Justice Sharma underlined that the money, credited into Gupta’s account on March 18, 2025, “was transferred on the very same day to multiple other bank accounts”.

A FIR was subsequently registered on the woman’s complaint 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.