The Supreme Court on [date] granted three weeks’ time to the complainant to file her reply in a case arising out of an alleged ‘digital arrest’ scam, after initially expressing reluctance to entertain the request for adjournment.
The matter was being heard in the backdrop of a Special Leave Petition filed by the accused seeking regular bail. The State of Haryana, along with the complainant, opposed the bail plea, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s conduct as reflected in the FIR. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the State has already been placed on record.
Appearing for the complainant, AoR Kunal sought time to file a detailed reply. At the outset, the Bench was not inclined to grant the request. However, during the course of hearing, the Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana and the Additional Advocate General (AAG) referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 3 of 2025 concerning ‘digital arrest’ scams.
The AAG specifically relied on paragraph 5 of the Court’s order dated December 1, 2025, wherein the Supreme Court held that digital arrest scams, owing to their severity, scale and disproportionate impact on senior citizens, require specialised investigation and must be probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The said order designates the CBI as the primary agency for investigating such cases.
Reliance was also placed on paragraph 6 of the same order, by which the Court issued a series of interim directions to strengthen the CBI’s hands, including granting it a free hand to investigate the role of bankers, impleading the Reserve Bank of India, directing cooperation from intermediaries under the IT Rules, mandating pan-India transfer of cases, permitting association of technical experts, and directing coordination with Interpol in appropriate cases.
It was submitted that the complainant in the present case is a 61-year-old woman, a retired Deputy Director-cum-Principal and Professor from the Department of Higher Education, Government of Haryana, who has allegedly been defrauded through a digital arrest scam.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s suo motu directions, counsel for the complainant submitted that a prayer has been made seeking transfer of the present case to the CBI for investigation, in line with the December 1, 2025 order.
Taking these circumstances into account, the Bench ultimately granted three weeks’ time to the complainant to file her reply.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Christi Jain, AOR; Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.; Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv.; Mr. Abrar Ahmed, Adv.; Mr. Arjun Kanadi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G.; AoR Kunal Yadav; Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR; Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv.; Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv.; Mr. Divya Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv.; Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.
