New Delhi | A Delhi court has rejected the bail plea of a man accused of being an active member of a ‘digital arrest’ scam, holding the material recovered from his possession adequate to prove a prima facie case against him.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar Gautam was hearing a regular bail application moved by Mohammad Shahid, who has been arrested for allegedly committing cyber fraud through impersonation in a ‘digital arrest’ scam.
A digital arrest is a cyber fraud where scammers masquerading as law enforcement or government officials trap victims in a web of fear and fabricated legality, coercing them to stay on camera and pay money to clear their names.
According to the prosecution, the complainant was subjected to a digital arrest through video calls, during which the accused impersonated a powerful public figure and induced her, under fear and deception, to transfer Rs 99,800 in a single transaction.
The cheated amount was allegedly routed through multiple bank accounts forming part of a structured network involving several intermediaries and accused persons operating across states.
“Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the prima facie role attributed to the applicant, the stage of the investigation, the fact that the co-accused are still absconding, the previous rejection of bail applications and the inapplicability of parity, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage,” the court said in its order dated March 30.
The court noted that similar bail applications had already been dismissed on January 3 and March 10, and found the present plea to be a “reiteration of grounds which have already been considered and rejected”.
Rejecting the argument that the amount involved was small or that the accused had no direct role, the court said cyber fraud must be assessed in light of the modus operandi and the organised network.
It observed that the material on record prima facie indicated his involvement in a larger conspiracy involving multiple accused and layered fund transfers.
The court also rejected the claim that the accused was merely a mule account holder, noting the recovery of a debit card linked to the transaction and digital chats suggesting international cryptocurrency dealings.
It declined to consider arguments on the inadmissibility of disclosure statements or “baseless allegations” of foreign links at the bail stage, emphasising that only the existence of prima facie material is relevant, while the merit of such issues will be examined during trial.
Additionally, in the context of rising digital arrest scams and newer tactics employed by cyber criminals, the judge said, “This court cannot also lose sight of the increasing menace of cybercrimes, wherein unsuspecting citizens are cheated of their hard-earned money through sophisticated means of impersonation and digital manipulation.
“Such offences not only cause financial loss to individuals but also erode public confidence in digital financial systems. Persons involved in such activities, acting in an organised manner, exploit technological platforms to unlawfully enrich themselves at the cost of innocent victims, and such conduct deserves to be viewed seriously.”
He also elaborated through Supreme Court precedents that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be dealt with a different approach, based on their gravity and impact on society.
