Delhi High Court Denies Bail To 'Digital Arrest' Scam Accused; Says Mule Account Holders Are Important Cogs Of Conspiratorial Wheel

"Every player, participating in a scam related to digital arrest, plays pivotal role, in one way or the other... At this stage, the applicants cannot be dubbed as victims or minor players or mere holders or providers of mule accounts", Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has refused to grant bail to four individuals allegedly involved in a massive "digital arrest" scam where a senior citizen was duped of over ₹22.92 crores.

A bench of Justice Manoj Jain observed that such organized crimes have a massive societal impact and that those providing mule accounts or login credentials cannot be viewed as mere peripheral players. The Court emphasized that these individuals act as "important cogs of the conspirational wheel," without whom the fraudulent machinery could not function.

The case originated from an FIR registered by the Special Cell after a 70-year-old victim, Sh. Naresh Malhotra, was subjected to a "digital arrest" by fraudsters impersonating Airtel and CBI officials. Over the course of a month, the victim was coerced into transferring ₹22.92 crores into various accounts under the fear of a fabricated national-level scandal. The four applicants—Mohit, Ashok Kumar, Vipul Rana, and Himanshu Singh—were linked to the siphoning of these funds, specifically involving an IndusInd Bank account where ₹1.90 crores were diverted.

The primary question before the court was whether the providers of mule accounts and facilitators in a digital arrest scam are entitled to regular or anticipatory bail when the larger conspiracy is still under investigation. The court was also called upon to determine if the lack of criminal antecedents and the filing of a partial charge-sheet outweighed the necessity of custodial interrogation by the CBI.

Court Highlights Growing Menace of Digital Arrest Scams

Justice Manoj Jain began by noting that the victim, a senior citizen, fell prey to a sophisticated psychological operation involving threats and isolation. The Court observed that incidents where senior citizens are coerced and duped through digital arrest are on the rise and must be dealt with "extra sensitivity." The bench noted that these offenses not only erode public trust but impact the entire society at large.

CBI Designated As Primary Agency For Digital Arrest Probes

The Court took judicial note of the Supreme Court’s directions in a Suo Moto Writ Petition regarding victims of digital arrest. It was highlighted that the Apex Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to be the primary agency to investigate such scams on a pan-India basis. The High Court remarked that since the CBI has recently entered the scene, granting bail at this stage could severely hamper the ongoing efforts to unearth the larger conspiracy.

Mule Account Holders Are Not Mere Victims

The Court rejected the arguments of the applicants who claimed they were lured into the trap or were unaware of the magnitude of the crime. Regarding the applicant Mohit, whose account received the cheated funds, the Court noted that sharing login credentials for a commission constitutes a tacit understanding in furtherance of a conspiracy. The bench observed that his account was found involved in two other cyber-crimes, indicating a pattern of professional involvement.

"The applicants cannot be dubbed as victims or minor players or mere holders or providers of mule accounts. Their roles cannot be characterized as mere peripheral."

Inter-connectivity Between Accused Establishes Conspiracy

While examining the role of Ashok Kumar, the Court pointed out that WhatsApp chats revealed he was working in tandem with the account aggregator. The bench noted that the movement of ₹1.90 crores out of the bank account on the very same day it was received was not possible without active participation and connivance. The Court held that even if an individual did not directly interact with the victim during the "digital arrest," their role in providing the financial infrastructure for the fraud was critical.

Necessity of Custodial Interrogation to Unveil Modus Operandi

In dismissing the anticipatory bail pleas of Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh, the Court emphasized that digital evidence is fragile and easily destructible. The bench observed that custodial interrogation is "qualitatively more elicitation oriented" than questioning a suspect who is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Anil Sharma to underscore that a suspect well-ensconced in a favorable order can afford to elude the investigating agency.

Conspirational Wheel Cannot Move Without Every Cog

The Court concluded that in a complex modus operandi where other conspirators are yet to be arrested and the cheated money is yet to be recovered, the exact picture would only emerge during trial. The bench held that any compassion shown to the applicants at this stage would be misplaced. It was observed that the "wheel would not have moved" without the specific involvement of each player in the chain.

"They seem to be important cogs of the conspirational wheel. The wheel would not have moved, without their involvement."

The Delhi High Court dismissed all four bail applications, concluding that the gravity of the organized crime and the ongoing nature of the CBI probe necessitated continued custody. The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not affect the final expression on the merits of the case during trial.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2026