'Cyber Crime Like A Silent Virus Costing Society More Than Money': Allahabad HC Denies Bail To 'Digital Arrest' Accused

The Court also noted that cybercrime affects people across the nation, irrespective of religion, region, education, or class and that such crimes must be curbed.

A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava further added that while initiatives like Digital India have accelerated the country's digital transformation, they have also exposed vulnerabilities that cybercriminals exploit.

“This Court finds that in India, the rapid advancement of technology and the widespread adoption of digital infrastructure have led to a significant rise in cyber-crimes including phishing scams, ransomware attacks, cyber-stalking and data breaches,” the single judge remarked.

The court made these observations while denying bail to one Nishant Roy, booked under Sections 384, 406, 419, 420, 506, 507 & 34 IPC & Sections 66-C & 66-D of the IT Act in an alleged case of Digital Arrest.

For context, a “Digital Arrest” scam involves fraudsters impersonating law enforcement via video calls, threatening fake arrests by falsely accusing them of illegal activities, and extorting money from them.

In this case, the victim/first informant (Kakoli Das) received a call from someone posing as a representative of a courier company, claiming that a parcel in her name was being sent to Taiwan and it contained illegal materials, including 200 gm of MDMA.

The call was later transferred to a person posing as the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, who digitally arrested her and, thereafter, coerced her into sharing her bank account details for investigation purposes.

Thereafter, over three days (April 23-25, 2024), a total of ₹1.48 crore was fraudulently transferred from her SBI and Yes Bank accounts through RTGS by the cyber-criminals.

Seeking bail in the case, the applicant, a 6th-semester BBA student, moved the HC arguing that he was named in the FIR but has been falsely implicated during the investigation as his father's name was mentioned by the accused, Rama @ Chetan, in his confessional statement.

The applicant argued that the recovery of 3 mobiles, two pre-activated SIM cards, and a chequebook was fabricated by the Investigating Officer, and his counsel claimed that no transactions occurred in the applicant's account.

It was also his case that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum sentence of 7 years and that he cannot be implicated in the case solely based on a co-accused's statement.

Lastly, it was contended that he has been in jail since May 7, 2024, and although the charge sheet was filed on June 27, 2024, charges against him have not yet been framed, and since custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, he should be granted bail.

On the other hand, the AGA for the state opposed his bail plea on the grounds that the informant out of the 1.48 crores siphoned from the bank account of the victim, a Senior Citizen, a sum of Rs. 62 Lacs was transferred to the account of Sandhu Enterprises, which was run by the co-accused Amar Pal Singh and his wife.

It was also submitted that the SIM recovered from the applicant had been found connected to the Bank Account of Sandhu Enterprises, which is why he had been implicated in this case.

It was also apprised that co-accused Amar Pal Singh, Karan Preet, wife of Amar Pal Singh, Devendra Kumar alias Dev Roy, are absconding, and an investigation is going on against them.

Against this backdrop, noting that the charges are yet to be framed against the applicant, the investigation against the other co-accused is still underway, the Court refused to grant him bail.

Case title - Nishant Roy vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 26

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 26

Click Here ToRead/Download Order