Biometric Match Between Two Aadhaar Cards Ties Accused to Forged Identity Used in ₹10 Crore Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Pan-India Cyber Fraud Case

“Principle of Parity in Bail Cannot Override Gravity and Hierarchy of Role in Organised Transnational Cybercrime”:  On November 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court refused to grant regular bail to two individuals accused of being central figures in a nationwide cyber fraud syndicate that allegedly used forged Aadhaar identities, mule bank accounts, and foreign operatives to dupe investors of over ₹10 crore through fake trading platforms on WhatsApp and Telegram. Justice Ajay Digpaul held that the evidence pointed to “active and deliberate” roles played by both petitioners in an organised digital fraud operation spanning multiple Indian states and Dubai.

Dismissing both bail applications, the Court held that the "gravity of the offence, the scale of the fraud, and the continuing investigation into a complex transnational syndicate" made custodial detention imperative at this stage.

“Forged Aadhaar Used Fingerprints from Two Identities – One of Them Belongs to the Accused Himself”: Court Finds Prima Facie Evidence of Identity Fraud

The central allegation against petitioner Paramjit Kharb was that he created forged identity documents under the name “Rinku Singh” to open multiple bank accounts, including one in the name of “M/s R.S. Trading,” into which ₹29.5 lakh of defrauded investor funds were traced. The High Court noted that biometric verification conducted by Punjab National Bank revealed that one fingerprint used to open the fraudulent account matched the Aadhaar of “Rinku Singh”, while another fingerprint matched Paramjit Kharb’s own Aadhaar.

The Court observed that this biometric overlap “furnishes strong prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the creation and use of the forged identity and the operation of the fraudulent account.”

The Court also relied on statements from Deshraj Yadav, the landlord of the premises rented under the name “Rinku Singh”, and Akshay Kumar, a bank official, both of whom identified Paramjit Kharb as the person who posed as Rinku Singh and furnished forged documents to open the fraudulent accounts.

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that such biometric tampering was technically impossible, calling it “a matter of evidentiary value, to be tested at trial, and not a ground sufficient to displace the prima facie case made out by the prosecution at this stage.”

“Not Just Disclosures – Independent Testimony and Biometric Evidence Corroborate Prosecution’s Case”

The Court rejected the argument that the case rested solely on the disclosures of co-accused, pointing to independent evidence including biometric linkage, documentary trails, and third-party witness identification.

Justice Digpaul emphasised: “This Court cannot overlook the fact that the prosecution does not solely rely on the disclosure statements made by other co-accused, but also on corroborative evidence, including biometric matches and identification by witnesses.”

While the defence maintained that Kharb had no direct contact with complainants and no money trail led to him, the Court held that “even if no proceeds of crime were recovered from the petitioner, his role in creating the infrastructure of fraud — forged Aadhaar, bank accounts, and tenancy agreements — is substantial and incriminating.”

“Remote Access Given to Dubai-Based Scam Operators – Accused’s Role Extends Beyond Borders”: Court Finds Raman’s Role Central in International Conspiracy

As for Ram Kumar Raman, the Court noted that he allegedly acted as a handler in the fraud syndicate, purchasing pre-opened bank accounts and SIM cards from middlemen in India and reselling them to individuals based in Dubai, enabling them to conduct financial fraud using Indian credentials.

On his arrest, investigators recovered laptops, multiple SIM cards, ATM cards, and documents linked to fraudulent entities including “R.S. Trading”. The Court observed that “such recoveries and the pattern of alleged conduct place the petitioner at a higher hierarchical footing, showing coordination beyond mere participation.”

The prosecution contended that Raman provided remote desktop access via TeamViewer and AnyDesk to foreign-based scam operators, allowing them to control Indian bank accounts and conduct financial transactions while masking their location.

Rejecting the plea that no direct funds were traced to Raman, the Court held: “Even without a clear financial trail leading to the petitioner, the nature of the recovered items and digital evidence places him in the core network of a cross-border syndicate.”

“Multiplicity of FIRs Reflects Widespread Operation, Not Duplication – Presence of Petitioner in Each Suggests Continuing Pattern”

Both petitioners argued that multiple FIRs filed against them in different states stemmed from the same factual matrix and could not be used to infer habitual criminality. However, the Court found otherwise, noting that the registration of FIRs in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh clearly showed “a widespread and systematic cyber-fraud operation.”

The Court held that the multiplicity of FIRs was not indicative of duplication, but “evidence of the scale and interstate character of the operation, which had targeted victims across jurisdictions with a coordinated digital scheme.”

It further noted that both petitioners were named in FIRs filed in Mumbai, Pune, Bhopal, Noida, Gurugram, Nagaur, Kanchipuram, and other regions, and their names figured consistently in similar roles involving forged bank accounts and syndicate coordination.

“Bail Cannot Be Treated as a Right When Accused’s Role Reflects Deliberate Facilitation of Organised and Systematic Digital Crime”

On the petitioners’ claim that co-accused with arguably more direct roles had been granted bail, the Court clarified that “parity is not an absolute right”, and bail must be decided based on the specific role of each accused.

Justice Digpaul observed: “When the cases of both petitioners are examined together, it becomes evident that, though their individual roles may differ, each stands as an active participant in the larger fraudulent operation alleged in the present FIR.”

The Court rejected the plea that the absence of financial recoveries or prior criminal antecedents entitled the accused to bail, stating: “The organised nature of the offence, its inter-state as well as international ramifications, and the complex modus operandi weigh heavily against the grant of bail.”

“Cybercrime Has No Borders – Courts Must Exercise Caution Before Granting Bail in Tech-Enabled Financial Frauds”

The judgment concluded with a strong observation on the challenges posed by cybercrime:

“Such offences are not constrained by geographical boundaries and can be perpetrated remotely by individuals operating from any part of India, often leaving victims scattered across jurisdictions. In this backdrop, allegations such as those in the present case demand heightened judicial caution.”

Stating that a lenient approach would undermine deterrence in cybercrimes, the Court refused to interfere, holding that bail could not be granted solely on technical defences or parity with co-accused whose roles were materially different.

The bail applications were accordingly dismissed with the clarification that “nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Date of Decision: 03 November 2025