Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail in Rs 3.03 crore ‘digital arrest’ case

The high court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations of the digital arrest, focused on the specific role attributed to the petitioner. (Image enhanced using AI)

Phone call that turned into captivity

At the centre of the case is one Dr Anita, a retired principal, who was allegedly manipulated, threatened, and confined not in a jail cell, but inside her own home. It began with a phone call. It ended with Rs 3.03 crore gone and a victim trapped in what investigators now describe as a chilling case of “digital arrest.”

On the evening of January 3, 2025, Dr Anita received a call from men claiming to be law enforcement officials. They told her she was under investigation for serious offences illegal advertisements, harassment, even money laundering.

What followed was a script increasingly seen in cybercrime across India. She was warned that multiple FIRs had been registered against her. She was told that her phone numbers would soon be blocked and she could face jail. And most critically that her family could suffer the same fate if she spoke to anyone.

Then came the control. Through repeated video calls and constant monitoring, the callers ensured she remained isolated. She was told not to leave her room. Not to inform anyone. Not to disconnect. It was, in effect, a “digital arrest” a virtual captivity enforced through fear.

By the time the ordeal ended, she had transferred Rs 3.03 crore to bank accounts dictated by the callers who had put her under “digital arrest”.

The petitioner is accused of receiving a portion of the defrauded money and converting it into cryptocurrency (USDT) as part of the fraud network, and had approached the court under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking release on bail in the FIR registered by Gurugram cyber police.

Gravity against custody

The high court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations of the digital arrest, focused on the specific role attributed to the petitioner.

The court noted that:

• The accused handled Rs 4.26 lakh out of the total defrauded amount
• He had been in custody since February 18, 2025
• The investigation was complete
• The trial, being before a magistrate, could take time

Considering these factors, the court ruled that continued incarceration was not warranted and granted bail, subject to strict conditions.

Following money trail

Police investigations traced the siphoned money across a web of accounts, revealing an organised network.

One account alone received Rs 63 lakh. From there, funds were routed through multiple individuals, some allegedly providing bank accounts for a commission, others withdrawing and redistributing the money.

The petitioner in the high court case was arrested on February 18, 2025. Investigators said his role was to receive Rs 4.26 lakh, part of the stolen amount and convert it into cryptocurrency (USDT), earning a commission of Rs 70,000.

According to the prosecution, he was part of a chain that helped obscure the money trail through this digital arrest scam.

Inside court: Question of role, liberty

Senior Advocate Bipin Ghai along with advocates Nikhil Ghai, Akhil Godara and Bhavnish Garg argued that the accused was not part of the original fraud of the digital arrest scam.

He had not spoken to the victim. He had not issued threats. His role, counsel said, was limited to converting a portion of the funds into cryptocurrency after the fraud had already taken place. He had no prior criminal record and had spent weeks in custody.

Additional Advocate General Vikram Singh however, painted a different picture of a coordinated cyber fraud where each link in the chain, including those handling the money, played a critical role.

Advocate Vikram Singh, appearing for the complainant opposed the bail plea of the accused.

Anatomy of ‘digital arrest’

The case lays bare a disturbing evolution in cybercrime where fraud is no longer just about deception, but domination. Victims are not merely tricked, they are controlled.

• Impersonation of authority: Fraudsters pose as police or investigative agencies
• Fear as a weapon: Threats of arrest, jail, and family harm
• Isolation tactics: Victims are cut off from real-world contact
• Surveillance: Continuous video calls create a sense of being watched
• Financial extraction: Large transfers made under duress

In Dr Anita’s case, the “arrest” had no bars, no warrant, only a screen and a voice that sounded official enough to command obedience.

Warning beyond courtroom

While the high court’s order deals with bail, the case itself is a stark warning. Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly clarified that no legitimate authority conducts arrests over video calls or demands money transfers in investigations.

Yet, such scams continue to thrive on fear and information asymmetry. As this case shows, the consequences can be devastating not just financially, but psychologically. And in the age of digital crime, captivity no longer needs walls.