GURUGRAM: A sessions court on Monday denied bail to Delhi resident Kshitij Mahara in an alleged Rs 23 lakh "digital arrest" fraud, observing that cybercrimes need to be dealt with stern hands and deserve no leniency.
Additional sessions judge Sudeep Goel held that the case targeting a 65-year-old complainant was part of an organised cyberfraud network in which different accused allegedly played different roles. Mahara was arrested on 27 August.
Case outline before the court
The FIR was registered at Cyber West police station on 25 August 2025 under sections 318(4), 319 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the prosecution, complainant Virender Singh Rawat of Sector 102 received a WhatsApp call on 29 July 2025 from a person claiming to be a CBI officer. Rawat was told a bank account had been opened using his Aadhaar and that he was "involved" in money laundering. He was directed to transfer money to specified accounts. Rawat and his wife transferred Rs 15 lakh and Rs 8 lakh respectively.
Investigators said accused Anas Sheikh was arrested first. Based on his disclosure, police alleged the involvement of Mahara and another accused, L Meikeingakpa Meitei alias Klose. Police said Rs 8 lakh from the cheated amount was initially moved to a charitable trust, while Rs 2.95 lakh reached an SBI account. The court noted telephonic conversations between Mahara and other accused that, in its view, established a chain of events pointing to his alleged role.
Advocate Saniyam Bhardwaj, for Mahara, argued that his client was falsely implicated on a co-accused's statement, had received no money and had no call-detail or financial links with the others. He also cited Mahara's mother's stage-IV cancer and the recent birth of his child. Public prosecutor Jagbir Sahrawat opposed bail, calling it a serious cyberfraud involving impersonation of officials and a senior citizen, and warning that release could allow witness influence or similar offences.
Digital-arrest scripts typically mix video calls, forged agency letterheads and pressure to keep the "arrest" secret from neighbours. Rawat's complaint, as summarised in court, followed that pattern: a purported CBI officer, an Aadhaar-linked account story and urgent transfers totalling Rs 23 lakh across two family accounts.
The court said family circumstances did not warrant leniency given the allegations and the organised nature of the offence. Denial of bail is an interim order. The prosecution case remains to be proved at trial, including the contested weight of co-accused disclosures and call records. For elderly residents who still take official-sounding video calls at face value, the order underlines how seriously local courts say they will treat digital-arrest scripts that move bank transfers within hours.
