Court Emphasizes Need for Custodial Interrogation to Trace Money Trail, Rejects Applicant's Claim of Being a Victim Without Supporting Evidence
In a significant ruling on October 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Anuj Satendra Saxena, who was apprehensive of arrest in a high-profile digital fraud case involving the transfer of Rs. 4.03 crores into his bank account. The case pertains to offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complaint originated from a doctor who was the victim of a digital arrest fraud, being coerced to pay a staggering Rs. 7.17 crores. Allegedly, a sum of Rs. 4.03 crores was transferred into the applicant's account and was withdrawn almost immediately. The applicant contended that he runs a charitable institution and was approached by an individual named Vinit Shrivastava, who proposed a donation of Rs. 20 lakhs for his organization. The applicant claimed that his mobile phone was hacked, leading to the unauthorized credit of Rs. 4.03 crores into his account, which he asserted made him a victim rather than a perpetrator.
However, the court found no material evidence to support the claim of hacking or unauthorized access. The Public Prosecutor highlighted that the applicant's explanation appeared to be an afterthought, especially given the enormity of the amount and the practical difficulties in withdrawing such a sum in a single day due to banking transaction limits. It was also noted that the competent court in Kanpur had already taken cognizance of the offences and rejected a similar defense.
The court underscored the seriousness of cyber and economic offences involving digital arrests, noting the increasing prevalence of such crimes. It observed that offenders often use multiple bank accounts to receive and distribute defrauded money, complicating the tracing of the money trail. Consequently, custodial interrogation is deemed essential to unravel the network behind such offences and identify the actual culprits.
Referring to the Supreme Court's suo moto writ petition on victims of digital arrest related to forged documents (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 3/2025), the court reiterated the importance of strict guidelines for investigating digital frauds. The court held that accepting frivolous or unsupported explanations would undermine effective investigation and potentially encourage further cyber crimes.
In light of these considerations, the Bombay High Court refused anticipatory bail to the applicant, affirming the necessity of custodial interrogation for a thorough probe into the matter.
This ruling marks a firm stance by the judiciary against cyber fraud and reinforces the principle that claims of victimhood in cases involving large-scale digital transactions must be substantiated with credible evidence.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in digital arrest and cyber fraud case involving transfer of Rs. 4.03 crores to applicant's account was refused; Court held that in serious economic offences, frivolous explanation that account holder is himself a victim cannot be readily accepted in absence of supporting material, and custodial interrogation is necessary to trace money trail and identify real perpetrators.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66(D)
