₹58-cr digital arrest fraud accused gets bail due to lack of evidence

The case, registered by the Nodal Cyber police station, stems from a complaint lodged in October 2025 by a businessman who alleged that fraudsters impersonating officials from TRAI, CBI, and the cyber crime department subjected him to a prolonged and coercive ‘digital arrest’.

MUMBAI: The sessions court granted bail to Bipingiri Rameshgiri Goswami, an accused in a ₹58.13-crore digital arrest fraud case, because the prosecution failed to produce independent material substantiating its claim that he facilitated the laundering of funds through a mule account. The court said relying solely on a co-accused’s statement is legally untenable at the bail stage.

₹58-cr digital arrest fraud accused gets bail due to lack of evidence

The case, registered by the Nodal Cyber police station, stems from a complaint lodged in October 2025 by a businessman who alleged that fraudsters impersonating officials from TRAI, CBI, and the cyber crime department subjected him to a prolonged and coercive ‘digital arrest’. The callers claimed he was implicated in illegal financial transactions and placed him under constant voice and video surveillance. Fearing arrest, he transferred ₹58.13 crore to multiple bank accounts over several weeks.

Investigators described the operation as a large, organised cyber fraud involving a network of handlers, impersonators and financial conduits. According to the police, at least ₹15.25 crore of the defrauded amount was routed through a bank account linked to a Gujarat-based entity, forming part of a wider laundering chain involving multiple accounts and intermediaries.

Police arrested several suspects connected to the money trail. Goswami was arrested in November 2025 and accused of acting as a facilitator by procuring and supplying the credentials of a bank account registered to a mechanical works firm. Through this account, ₹15.25 crore was allegedly channeled before being dispersed into various other accounts. The prosecution contended that Goswami enabled the movement of tainted funds within the laundering network.

Additional sessions judge Nitin V. Jiwane, however, found that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on a co-accused’s statement, lacking supporting documentary or electronic evidence. He observed that even the chargesheet lacked material proving his involvement in the alleged transactions.

The court also noted that another accused had already been granted bail, entitling Goswami to the same treatment. “The rule of parity is applicable,” the court observed and granted bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with sureties.