Custodial interrogation is essential in "digital arrest" cyber fraud cases to unearth larger conspiracies and complex technical modus operandi.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 109/2025 involving offences under Sections 308(2)/318(4)/319(2)/204/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [p. 1].

The complainant alleged she was placed under "digital arrest" by fraudsters posing as surveillance officers and a judge, who claimed she was involved in money laundering [p. 2].

Under this pretext, she was induced to transfer ₹30,00,000 to an account linked to the applicant’s firm, Qualilogix Pharma Consulting Private Limited [p. 2-3].

Investigation revealed the applicant provided a false address for the bank account, failed to join the investigation despite notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and that his mobile location coincided with the fraudulent transaction alerts [p. 3-4].

The applicant claimed he was a victim of hacking and had requested the bank to freeze his account [p. 4].

The Court applied the provisions governing anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), specifically noting the failure to comply with Section 35(3) (formerly Section 41A Cr.P.C.) notices [p. 3].

It relied on the gravity of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including cheating and forgery [p. 1].

Furthermore, the court took judicial notice of the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents, which characterized the forgery of judicial orders and "digital arrests" as an assault on the majesty of the institution rather than routine cybercrime [p. 7-8].

The Court rejected the applicant’s claim of being a victim of hacking, noting that nearly ₹1.50 crores had circulated through his account over six months without any prior complaint by him [p. 6].

Analysis of CDR and IMSI data placed the applicant in the same geographic location (Vadodara/Gandhinagar) as the active SIM card linked to the fraudulent account during the time of the transactions [p. 5-6].

The Court observed that the applicant used a false address for KYC and frequently changed residences to evade detection [p. 6].

Given that the complainant’s funds were immediately siphoned to multiple other accounts and that four other NCRP cyber fraud complaints were linked to the applicant’s account, the Court found a strong prima facie case of organized criminal activity [p. 7].

It held that the "digital arrest" modus operandi is a serious cyber fraud that requires thorough investigation [p. 8].

The Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and that custodial interrogation is essential to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy and the pan-India criminal enterprise [p. 9].

Following the Supreme Court’s direction in related suo motu proceedings, the Court emphasized that such grave criminal acts cannot be treated as routine offences [p. 8-9].