Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of ₹1.3 Crore ‘Digital Arrest’ Cyber Fraud, Raises Alarm On Rising Such Cases Across Country

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of cheating a woman of ₹1.3 crore through an elaborate cyber fraud scheme in which the victim was falsely placed under what is commonly described as “digital arrest”.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the allegations disclose a serious instance of cyber-crime in which technological tools were used to deceive and extort money from the victim.

The court noted that the case reflects a growing trend of online frauds where individuals impersonate law enforcement officials and intimidate victims into transferring money under the threat of legal action.

“…….the allegations against the applicant relate to a serious instance of cyber fraud involving the modus operandi of so called ‘digital arrest’. Such offences are carried out through technological means to deceive and extort money from unsuspecting victims, as remarked by the Supreme Court. Such cases are increasingly being reported across the country,” the court said in its order.

The accused, Oma Kant Gupta, had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report registered last year on the complaint of a woman who alleged that she had been defrauded of ₹1.3 crore.

The FIR was registered under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including sections dealing with extortion, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, cheating by personation, impersonating a public servant, and criminal conspiracy.

According to the complaint, the incident began on March 15, 2025 when the woman received a WhatsApp call from an individual claiming to be a surveillance officer.

During the call, the caller allegedly informed her that her bank accounts were under monitoring pursuant to a court order. The caller further told her that she was under investigation in connection with a money laundering case.

The situation escalated when other individuals joined the call and introduced themselves as a Central Bureau of Investigation officer and a judge.

The callers allegedly informed the woman that she had been placed under “digital arrest” in connection with the purported money laundering case. They warned her that legal action would be taken against her unless she complied with their instructions.

The fraudsters allegedly directed her to transfer large sums of money to specific bank accounts to settle the matter and avoid legal consequences.

According to the FIR, the woman was asked to transfer ₹30 lakh and ₹80.10 lakh into two different bank accounts as part of the scheme to allegedly quash the money laundering proceedings against her.

After realizing that she had been defrauded, the woman lodged a complaint through the cyber helpline, which led to the registration of the case and initiation of police investigation.

During the course of the investigation, the police found that a sum of ₹30 lakh from the allegedly defrauded amount had been credited to the bank account of the accused, Oma Kant Gupta.

Based on these findings, the investigating agency identified Gupta as a beneficiary of the proceeds of the alleged fraud.

Seeking anticipatory bail, Gupta contended before the High Court that he had been falsely implicated in the case and had no role in the alleged fraud.

Counsel for Gupta, Divyakant Lahoti argued that he was the victim of a conspiracy and was not involved in the transactions through which the money was transferred into his bank account.

He maintained that the funds credited to his account were not linked to any fraudulent activity on his part and that he had no knowledge of the alleged scheme.

The Delhi Police opposed the bail plea and urged the court to dismiss the application.

Appearing for the prosecution, Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar informed the court that the police had issued a notice to Gupta directing him to join the investigation. However, he failed to comply with the notice.

The prosecution further submitted that Gupta was the direct recipient of ₹30 lakh from the amount transferred by the complainant, and that the transaction was the first transfer made from her account as part of the alleged fraud.

Given these circumstances, the prosecution argued that Gupta’s custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the larger conspiracy and identify other individuals involved in the cyber fraud.

The state also contended that the nature of the allegations and the growing prevalence of such digital frauds warranted a strict approach while considering requests for anticipatory bail.

After considering the submissions and examining the material placed on record, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.

The court observed that offences involving “digital arrest” schemes represent a serious form of cyber-crime that exploits technology to intimidate victims and extract money.

Noting the seriousness of the allegations and the need for effective investigation, the High Court held that the case did not merit the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.

“This Court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to impede the investigation, particularly when custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to unearth the entire modus operandi and the larger conspiracy”, the Court noted.

Case Title: Oma Kant Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi Through SHO

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Judgement: 12.03.2026