Facts
Sh. Naresh Malhotra, a senior citizen, was victimized by a "digital arrest" scam between August and September 2025, where fraudsters impersonating CBI and Mumbai Police officials coerced him into transferring ₹22.92 crores.
Source reference: para. 1-4A sum of ₹1.90 crores was traced to an IndusInd Bank account belonging to M/s Hyrocial Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., directed by Mohit (Petitioner) and Rinku.
Source reference: para. 7-8Investigation revealed a coordinated effort where Mohit provided login credentials to Ashok Kumar (Petitioner), who passed them to Samreet Singh and Himanshu Singh (Petitioner) for siphoning funds.
Source reference: para. 9-12Applicants Ashok Kumar and Mohit sought regular bail after being arrested on 24.09.2025, while Vipul Rana and Himanshu Singh sought anticipatory bail, claiming their roles were peripheral or based solely on co-accused statements.
Source reference: para. 9, 14, 16-21Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular or anticipatory bail considering the gravity of the "digital arrest" scam and the stage of the investigation.
Source reference: para. 14, 272. Whether the investigation by the CBI, as mandated by the Supreme Court in similar scams, creates a higher threshold for granting bail in organized cybercrimes.
Source reference: para. 24, 28Law Applied
The Court considered the principles of bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (specifically Sections 35(3) and provisions corresponding to the CrPC) and various precedents including Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Manish Sisodia v. ED, which establish that bail should not be withheld as a punishment merely due to the gravity of the offense.
Source reference: para. 16The Supreme Court's directives in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) 3/2025, which designated the CBI as the primary agency for "digital arrest" scams involving senior citizens.
Source reference: para. 24, 28The principle from State v. Anil Sharma that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective than questioning a suspect protected by an anticipatory bail order.
Source reference: para. 31Reasoning
The Court emphasized that while individual liberty is paramount, the unique nature of "digital arrest" scams requires extra sensitivity as they erode public trust.
Source reference: para. 27The Court rejected the "peripheral role" defense, noting that the applicants were "important cogs of the conspirational wheel".
Source reference: para. 34It highlighted that Mohit’s account received not only the complainant’s funds but an additional ₹3.21 crores from other victims, indicating a pattern of professional money laundering.
Source reference: para. 13, 30Regarding anticipatory bail for Vipul Rana and Himanshu, the Court found that they had misled the police regarding their whereabouts, and since digital evidence is fragile and easily destructible, their custodial interrogation was deemed "indispensable" to unearth the larger conspiracy and recover the cheated funds.
Source reference: para. 31, 34Holding
The Court dismissed all four bail applications, holding that the magnitude of the organized crime, the ongoing nature of the CBI investigation, and the necessity of recovering the cheated amount outweighed the factors favoring bail at this stage.
The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not prejudice the final trial.
Source reference: para. 37Original Court PDF
Vipul RanavsState Govt Of Nct Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in