The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases involving digital arrest frauds, identifying persons who receive, move or dissipate the cheated funds is as important as identifying those who directly communicate with the victim.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Himanshu in connection with an alleged Rs. 2.65 crore digital-arrest fraud case.

The Court noted that such frauds are ordinarily carried out through impersonation of public authorities, sustained psychological coercion and swift routing of money through several accounts.

It said that the investigation must therefore examine not only the persons who directly interact with victims but also those involved in handling the funds.

“A digital-arrest fraud is ordinarily carried out through impersonation of public authorities, sustained psychological coercion and the swift routing of money through several accounts. Identifying those who receive, move dissipate the funds may therefore be as important as identifying those who directly communicate with the victim,” the Court said.

It referred to the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents, noting that the Supreme Court had taken judicial notice of the scale and severity of digital-arrest scams and the need for specialised and coordinated investigation, including investigation into mule bank accounts.

The case arose from an FIR registered by the Special Cell under Sections 419, 420, 384 and 120B of the IPC.

According to the Delhi Police, a senior citizen was contacted through Skype and telephone by persons impersonating officials of TRAI, Mumbai Police and the CBI. He was allegedly threatened with arrest and induced to transfer Rs. 2.65 crore into accounts specified by the callers.

Accused Himanshu was not alleged to be one of the persons who spoke to or threatened the complainant. His alleged involvement emerged from the money trail.

The Police claimed that Rs. 5.31 lakh was transferred from the account of Waveland Comestible Pvt. Ltd. to his Kotak Mahindra Bank account, into which Rs. 1.15 crore of the complainant's money had earlier been credited.

The petitioner accused claimed that the disputed amount represented payment towards a genuine commercial transaction involving the sale of mobile phones. He relied on invoices and submitted that the relevant evidence was documentary and electronic and already available with the investigating agency.

Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that the accused had not produced several ordinary commercial records, including GST and income-tax returns, stock or purchase registers, sales registers, ledger, delivery challans, transport receipts, payment receipts or e-way bills.

Justice Narula said that the Petitioner was unable to provide the alleged buyer's telephone number or WhatsApp exchanges concerning the transaction.

The Court also rejected the accused's offer to deposit Rs. 5,31,168, observing that the investigation was not merely a recovery proceeding concerning that amount.

It added that the investigating agency was required to determine how the money reached his account, whether the transaction relied upon in explanation was genuine and where the funds moved thereafter.

The Court accordingly dismissed the anticipatory bail application, noting that the accused had not made out a case for exercise of discretion under Section 482 of BNSS.

“This conclusion stands independently of the further objection that the present application is successive and discloses no change in circumstance after the earlier petition was withdrawn,” the Court said.