The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant bail to four accused in what has been described as the national capital’s biggest digital arrest case, in which a 78-year-old retired banker from South Delhi lost Rs 22.92 crore to fraudsters last year.
“The offence in question is an organised crime, having massive societal impact. Every player, participating in a scam related to digital arrest, plays a pivotal role, in one way or the other…At this stage, the applicants cannot be dubbed as victims or minor players or mere holders or providers of mule accounts. Their roles cannot be characterised as mere peripheral. They seem to be important cogs of the conspiratorial wheel. The wheel would not have moved, without their involvement. Any compassion to the applicants, at this stage, may hamper the ongoing investigation, which has been recently taken over by CBI,” Justice Manoj Jain reasoned while refusing them bail.
The four accused were Mohit, Vipul Rana, Ashok Kumar, and Himanshu Singh.
As reported by The Indian Express, in a rare relief to a victim of a digital arrest scam, the Reserve Bank of India, through its Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, asked five “beneficiary” banks, where mule accounts were opened last year to transfer siphoned funds, to pay the victim in this case, Naresh Malhotra, between 5 per cent and 7.5 per cent of the deposited sums.
Justice Jain, while refusing bail, observed that such matters of digital arrests “have to be dealt with extra sensitivity and different approach as these offences not only erode the public trust and confidence but impact the entire society”.
“Such type of incidents, where taking undue advantage of the susceptible nature of senior citizens they are coerced and duped through digital arrest, are on the rise,” the court observed.
What the accused said vs the court’s response
* Accused Mohit argued that he was not a beneficiary and that his only mistake was sharing his login credentials with his co-accused. He added that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, which is struggling to pay the school fees of his minor children.
Story continues below this ad
The high court said that Mohit cannot claim that he was trapped and that he, too, was a victim. “He seems to have shared his login credentials, while being mindful about the consequences thereof, even if he expected handsome commission in lieu thereof. The amount of Rs 1.90 crore landed in his account in terms of tacit understanding only and in furtherance of conspiracy,” the court said.
The money was moved out of his account in terms of conspiracy, the court added. “Moreover, his account is in receipt of another sum of Rs 3.21 crore, which indicates that others, too, have been cheated. His account, as per chargesheet, is found involved in two other cyber-crimes. He is in touch with other accused, including Ashok Kumar,” the court noted.
* Accused Ashok Kumar claimed he has no complicity or involvement in the matter. The bank account in question did not belong to him, he said. Claiming that he came from a humble farming background and was exploited by others, he too argued that he was neither a beneficiary nor a recipient of the alleged cheated amount.
Kumar further said he was fooled and lured into a trap, including by a co-accused in the case Samreet, who was the alleged account aggregator who took his account under control. He also submitted that his wife was suffering from paralysis and that there was no one to look after their two young kids. He said he was cheated by Samreet.
Story continues below this ad
The court said that Mohit had shared his login credentials with Kumar. Accused Samreet, the alleged account aggregator, got these confidential details from Kumar. His mobile phone was seized, and the WhatsApp chats allegedly revealed that he was in touch with Kumar, Amit Kumar @ Bobby, and co-accused Rana.
* Accused Rana and Himanshu Singh said there was no incriminating material against them. Singh also argued that his role was being suspected on the basis of CCTV footage from Hotel Grand Blue, Greater Noida, UP, where he is shown in the hotel along with his co-accused Mohit, Kumar, Samreet, Rana, and others.
The court said that Rana tried to mislead the police by claiming that he remained in Delhi at the relevant time. However, as per CCTV footage and his call detail records, he was present with his co-accused at a hotel in Noida at the relevant time. Rana claimed that he only had two mobile numbers and gave the numbers of the mobile phones, but his co-accused Samreet revealed another number. Singh needs to be interrogated thoroughly as his presence at the hotel at the relevant time stands established, but he has yet not provided his mobile device, the court noted.
