Will the Supreme Court Deny Bail to the Accused in the Digital Fraud Case Involving a 72-Year-Old Advocate?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered that those accused in a major digital fraud case targeting a 72-year-old advocate will remain in custody. This decision is part of an ongoing investigation into a scam that has defrauded victims of substantial amounts, highlighting the urgent need for legal reforms.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court's ruling prohibits bail for accused in digital fraud case.
- Victim is a 72-year-old Advocate-on-Record.
- Over Rs. 3,000 crore reported lost in similar scams.
- Need for legal reforms regarding digital crimes.
- Next hearing set for November 24.
New Delhi, Nov 17 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has ruled that the individuals implicated in the case concerning a 72-year-old Advocate-on-Record (AoR), who fell victim to a fraudulent scheme involving Rs. 3.29 crore through a so-called digital arrest scam, will not be eligible for bail from any lower court while the investigation is ongoing and until further directives from the Supreme Court.
A panel comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued this ruling after approving the intervention request from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which highlighted the victim's plight to the apex court.
“The accused shall remain in custody and cannot be released on bail by any court during the investigation. Should they desire any relief, they may approach this Court,” the Justice Kant-led panel stated, following SCAORA's warning that the 90-day window for default bail was nearing its conclusion.
During the proceedings, advocate Vipin Nair represented SCAORA, joined by Secretary Nikhil Jain, Astha Sharma, and Kaustabh Shukla, and elaborated on how advocate Hemantika Wahi was ensnared in the digital arrest scam.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is the second-ranking legal official of the Centre, requested a delay due to commitments with another panel but backed SCAORA’s motion and informed the Justice Kant-led panel that he had personally spoken with the victim.
The Supreme Court subsequently allowed SCAORA to assist in the forthcoming hearings. In its submission, SCAORA expressed that the case “illustrates the procedural void and investigative stagnation” surrounding such offenses.
The bar association contended that these scams “seriously jeopardize the right to personal liberty under Article 21,” as fraudsters impersonate law enforcement and judicial officials, coercing victims via video calls and digital threats.
Referring to the Rajasthan High Court’s suo motu observations that “there exists no legal framework for law enforcement to effect arrests through video calls or online monitoring,” the request underscored the necessity for nationwide awareness and standardized procedures.
This directive emerges against the backdrop of earlier Supreme Court remarks indicating that over Rs 3,000 crore have been swindled via digital arrest schemes, many orchestrated from overseas locations like Myanmar and Thailand.
“If we do not implement strict and severe orders, the issue will escalate. We are committed to tackling these crimes decisively,” the Justice Surya Kant-led panel remarked in a previous hearing.
The suo motu case, initiated following complaints from a senior couple from Ambala who reported being digitally “arrested” and defrauded of more than Rs. 1 crore through counterfeit Supreme Court orders, is scheduled for its next hearing on November 24.
Point of View
The recent Supreme Court ruling is a crucial step towards addressing the rising tide of digital fraud in India. The decision reflects a commitment to justice and the protection of vulnerable citizens, particularly the elderly. It underscores the necessity for legal systems to adapt to new forms of crime while ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable.
NationPress
17/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the amount defrauded in the digital scam?
The amount defrauded in the digital scam was Rs. 3.29 crore.
What is the age of the victim involved in this case?
The victim involved in this case is a 72-year-old advocate.
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding bail for the accused?
The Supreme Court decided that the accused will not be granted bail by any subordinate court during the investigation.
When is the next hearing scheduled?
The next hearing is scheduled for November 24.
What legal article is mentioned as being violated by these scams?
The scams undermine the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
