The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed stong view over the growing menace of digital arrest scams, observing that if given the opportunity, it would not allow accused persons involved in such cases to be released on bail by any court. The Court emphasised that these crimes, which frequently target senior citizens and retired persons, must be dealt with firmly.
The observations were made during the hearing of a writ petition seeking consolidation of multiple cases against the accused. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, however, expressed a strong view on the seriousness of digital arrest crimes and the need to protect vulnerable victims. CJI remarked:
“
“You are aware that in matter of digital arrest, how strong view we have taken. Given a chance, we will not allow an accused of a digital arrest case to be released on bail by any court. You are talking about consolidation, grant of bail. Given a chance, we will set aside the bail order because this is the newest crime being committed against senior citizens, retired people who are being targeted by these ruthless criminals and they must be dealt with in the most ruthless manner. If the law has any scope to really punish them before trial, that must also be adopted.”
Showing concern over the alleged targeting of elderly victims through digital arrest scams, CJI remakred that if the law permitted punishment before trial in such cases, that possibility should also be explored.
The petitioners’ counsel sought limited notice to the authorities, arguing that the prosecution’s own documents indicated that the cases were being investigated by the same cybercrime agency. Counsel referred to portions of the chargesheet concerning the jurisdiction of the Delhi Cybercrime Cell and submitted that separate investigations by different agencies could result in duplication.
The Court, however, questioned the premise that the place where proceeds of crime were received should determine the jurisdiction for prosecuting the alleged offences. It emphasised that the location where victims were defrauded was a significant consideration.
“
“It is not the place where you receive the proceeds of crime that will become the jurisdiction. It is where the victim has been victimised. That should be the place. We have to seize jurisdiction. We are keeping the victim in mind, not the accused. If you take over 11 States, you receive an amount in Bangkok or in Singapore. That does not mean the offence will stand transferred to those charges that you are pointing out,” the bench observed.
The Court also questioned whether consolidating the cases in Delhi would require victims from different parts of the country to travel there to participate in the proceedings. It indicated that the convenience of the accused could not take precedence over the inconvenience caused to victims or the requirements of ongoing investigations.
Also Read: Digital Arrest Scam: Supreme Court Directs RBI, States, I4C to Strengthen Fraud Prevention Framework
The bench further questioned the petitioners’ claim that they had themselves been victims of the alleged cybercrime activity, suggesting that the request for consolidation could affect investigations being conducted across the country.
“
“We do not feel that your right of aggregation overrides the inconvenience of victims or the investigation. Always hinged on convenience. Now, where does the convenience lie? Should we drag all the victims across the country to Delhi? Because you pray that you were a victim of some persuasion by the bigger stakeholders in this organised crime activity, and thereby, you are not only a foot soldier in the crime. Now, today, you have been used as a foot soldier to derail the investigation across the country,” the Court remarked.
The bench also referred to an alleged incident involving an 81-year-old victim in Ernakulam, who was reportedly subjected to a digital arrest scam resulting in a loss of approximately ₹1.90 crore. After the Court declined to issue the limited notice sought by the petitioners for consolidation, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly withdrawn.