In an anticipatory bail application filed before the Bombay High Court due to apprehension of arrest regarding a FIR registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, a Single Judge Bench of Justice R.M. Joshi refused to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The FIR indicated that it was a case of digital arrest and fraud played upon the informant, a doctor who was pressurized to pay Rs. 7.17 crores. It was alleged that Rs. 4.03 crores went into the account of the present applicant. The applicant submitted that he used to run a charitable institution and that a person approached him with a proposal to donate Rs. 20,00,000/-. In response to this, he went to Delhi and performed poojas for 5 days. On 08-10-2026, he found that his mobile phone had been hacked and that Rs. 4.03 crore was deposited into his account and withdrawn on the same day. It was also submitted that bank details were provided to the person only to receive the donation.
The Court stated that there was an increase in the number of persons being defrauded by digital arrests and that an important aspect in such cases is that different accounts are used to receive the money after which the said money is distributed to different accounts making it impossible to trace the trail. It was said that any frivolous or afterthought explanation by the persons whose accounts are credited with crime money would amount to lend encouragement to commission of such crimes.
It was said that in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant would have to show that his mobile phone was hacked and noted that there was no material to indicate the same. It was also stated if any such defence is allowed to be taken, there could not be any investigation into any crime of this nature. Noting that a huge amount had been deposited in the applicant’s account, which was essentially operated by him, the Court refused to protect his liberty.
Lastly, the Court stated that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate into the crime. Thus, the application was dismissed.
