The Supreme Court has raised concerns over digital arrest scams targeting senior citizens, indicating that stricter conditions on granting bail to those accused of such crimes may be necessary. The court stressed the severity of financial losses suffered by elderly victims and said their interests must be given priority.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan made the observations while hearing a petition linked to multiple digital arrest fraud cases.
During the proceedings, the bench referred to the case of an 81-year-old resident of Ernakulam, Kerala, who allegedly lost ₹1.9 crore to a cybercrime syndicate. The court questioned whether victims should have to travel across states to pursue complaints against those accused of defrauding them.
The petition was filed by a Delhi-based individual accused of providing a mule bank account allegedly used to receive money obtained through digital arrest scams. He sought to consolidate several criminal cases registered in different states into a single proceeding. His counsel argued that the petitioner had approached the police after learning that his account was allegedly being used to transfer illicit funds.
The Supreme Court rejected the request, observing that the convenience of the accused could not take precedence over the interests of victims. It said investigations should continue under the police authorities in the states where the alleged frauds occurred.
However, the bench indicated that the petitioner could approach the respective High Courts to seek consolidation of investigations within individual states.
The court also criticised attempts to minimise the seriousness of these offences by describing them merely as extortion, suggesting that their gravity was closer to dacoity. It declined to grant relief solely on the petitioner’s claim that he was unaware of the alleged misuse of his bank account.
The observations underline growing judicial concern over organised cyber fraud targeting vulnerable citizens. However, the court’s remarks on a stricter bail approach do not, by themselves, establish a blanket prohibition on bail in such cases.
