Allahabad HC Upholds Arrests Of 14 Women In Lucknow Fake Cyber Call Centre Case

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) recently upheld the arrests of 14 women in connection with an alleged fake cyber call centre in Lucknow targeting US citizens, holding that the accused had been sufficiently informed of the grounds and reasons for their arrest through a recovery memo prepared at the time of the raid.

A bench of Justices Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani, in a judgment delivered on September 15, dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrests and the July 2 remand order. Court, however, clarified that its decision would not amount to any opinion on the merits of the criminal case, bail or trial.

Police raid finds 119 people at alleged cyber fraud centre

The case arose from a police raid conducted at around 10.30 pm on June 30 at the 11th floor of Summit Building in Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow. Acting on secret information, the police alleged that a fake call centre was being operated from the premises to target foreign nationals, particularly US citizens.

According to the FIR, the centre had three teams: dialler, banker and closure. The alleged operators would send pop-up messages to US citizens while projecting themselves as companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Netflix. Callers were allegedly told that their accounts had been hacked or used for unauthorised transactions.

The banking team would then allegedly obtain details of the victims' bank balances, while the closure team posed as officials of agencies including the FBI, Federal Trade Commission and US courts. The victims were allegedly threatened with criminal allegations and shown forged court orders and official documents.

Court recorded that 119 persons were found at the premises. Police seized 103 laptops, 99 mice, 116 headphones, 111 laptop chargers, 68 iPhones, 109 individual mobile phones, a biometric machine and routers. The recovery was videographed and the recovery memo was prepared at the spot.

All 119 persons, including the petitioners, were arrested on July 1. An FIR was registered the same day under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Information Technology Act and Telecommunications Act. They were produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow, on July 2, who granted judicial remand.

Grounds of arrest: Recovery memo amounted to substantial compliance

The petitioners argued that the police had violated Sections 36, 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 41B, 50 and 50A of the CrPC) and Article 22(1) by failing to properly prepare and furnish arrest memos containing the grounds of arrest.

The high court reiterated that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional and statutory safeguard. Referring to Supreme Court judgments including Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India (2024), Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, it noted that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing and that non-compliance can render an arrest and remand illegal.

But, examining the records in the present case, the bench found that the recovery memo contained detailed grounds and reasons for the arrests. The memo was prepared contemporaneously with the arrest, supplied to the petitioners and bore their signatures.

Court said that the recovery memo contained details of the alleged modus operandi, instruments used and the electronic material seized during the raid. It therefore concluded that the petitioners had come to know the grounds and reasons for their arrest.

The bench observed that the law prioritises “substantial compliance” over procedural or technical compliance, and held that the defect in the arrest memo, in the circumstances of the case, did not invalidate the arrests.

Section 48 BNSS violation did not make arrests illegal

The petitioners also alleged that their relatives and friends were not informed of their arrests as required under Section 48 BNSS and that there was no corresponding entry in the police records.

Court noted that Section 48 requires police to inform a nominated relative, friend or other person about the arrest and the place of detention, and requires the information to be recorded. The magistrate is also required to satisfy himself that these requirements have been followed.

In this case, the State produced call detail records showing that calls had been made to the nominated persons before the petitioners were produced before the magistrate. However, the police had not shown the corresponding entry in the arrest information booklet or general diary.

Court nevertheless held that the omission did not automatically invalidate the arrests. It noted that the petitioners were residents of northeastern states and that the nominated persons were also from the region. Telephone communication, court said, was therefore sufficient to provide the information within the time contemplated by law.

Court also observed that the magistrate's remand order was in a printed proforma and did not completely detail compliance with Sections 47 and 48 BNSS. However, since the grounds and reasons for arrest had been established as communicated, this was not sufficient to invalidate the arrest or remand.

Court accordingly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, while expressly stating that the dismissal would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, bail or trial.

Case Title: Karolyn @ Caroline Kharnaior Thru. Her Father Paramjit Singh Chhabra and others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and others

Order Date: September 15, 2026

Bench: Justices Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani