SC terms cyber crime as digital dacoity, refuses consolidation of cases

The Supreme Court rejected a request to consolidate more than 30 criminal complaints against Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari. The complaints are pending across 12 states and concern alleged cyber offences involving their company’s account. The bench said consolidation could disrupt investigations being conducted in different states.

The court focused on victims and investigators, not the accused’s convenience. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked why victims should travel to Delhi merely to help an accused seeking consolidation. The bench said the right to transfer cases cannot override the rights of victims and investigating agencies.

The plea was ultimately withdrawn after the court refused to entertain it. The bench said it could consider a transfer if Delhi Police requested one for investigative convenience, but would not dilute investigations across the country simply to bring the cases together.

A digital arrest is a cybercrime tactic in which criminals commonly impersonate police, court officials, or other authorities and claim that a victim is legally implicated. They use calls or online communication to create fear and demand money. The article identifies digital arrests as organised cyber offences targeting senior citizens, but does not describe every tactic.

The phrase “digital dacoity” compares these crimes with robbery carried out through digital tools. Instead of entering a home, criminals exploit communication technology, authority claims, and financial accounts. The Chief Justice used the phrase while condemning rackets that allegedly steal large sums from victims.

The court’s language signals that these offences are being treated as serious, organised wrongdoing. The CJI said those involved must face stringent action. The case also shows why investigations may span several states when victims, accounts, and investigators are located in different places.

The allegations were geographically widespread. The article reports more than 30 criminal complaints, and later specifies 35 criminal cases pending against the two accused. These cases involved states including Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana, and Gujarat, with proceedings spread across 12 states.

The article gives one especially large loss. An 81-year-old person from Ernakulam was allegedly defrauded of ₹1.90 crore. The Chief Justice told the accused that this money was deposited into their mule account. The example connected the alleged account use directly to a vulnerable victim’s financial loss.

This scale explains why the Supreme Court resisted moving every case to one location. The allegations involve multiple victims, state investigations, and money flows. The bench warned that the accused could not use consolidation proceedings to disrupt investigations or make victims travel for the accused’s convenience.

A mule account is a bank account used to receive, hold, or move money connected with fraud. It may belong to a person or company whose account is supplied to criminals. The article says the accused allegedly allowed their company’s account to serve as a mule for various offences.

The alleged mechanism was straightforward: a victim’s defrauded money was deposited into the company account. The Chief Justice cited an 81-year-old victim from Ernakulam whose ₹1.90 crore reportedly reached the account. Once money enters such an account, criminals may try to move it onward, making recovery and tracing harder.

The article does not describe the precise transfers or whether the account holders personally moved every payment. It does show why the court treated the alleged account use seriously. The bench said the accused had decided to use their company account for cybercrime, including digital arrest schemes.

Transferring every case to one court could centralise proceedings, but it might also disrupt investigations already underway in different states. The complaints involve several jurisdictions, victims, and investigating agencies. Moving them solely for the accused’s convenience could make those agencies reorganise their work around a distant forum.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi specifically asked why victims should travel to Delhi merely because an accused wanted consolidation. The court also questioned whether a victim whose money was deposited in Hong Kong and Bangkok should be asked to go there for redress. These examples highlight the practical burden created by scattered evidence and victims.

The Supreme Court therefore protected the existing investigations from being diluted. It left open the possibility of transfer if Delhi Police sought it for investigative convenience. But it rejected using consolidation proceedings to disrupt cases or shift the burden onto victims.

Cybercrime cases may need separate investigations when alleged offences affect victims and agencies in different states. The article reports cases in Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana, Gujarat, and other states. Each investigation may be examining local complaints, evidence, bank accounts, and financial trails connected with its own victims.

The court’s concern was practical. Justice Bagchi said victims should not be forced to travel to Delhi for an accused’s convenience. The CJI also referred to money from a victim being deposited in Hong Kong and Bangkok, showing that financial trails can cross borders as well as state lines.

Keeping investigations in their existing jurisdictions can allow local agencies and victims to participate without shifting everything to one forum. The bench said it would consider transfer if Delhi Police sought it for investigative convenience. It would not, however, dilute nationwide investigations merely to suit the accused.

In the common pattern known as a digital arrest scam, criminals impersonate officials and tell victims they are connected to a crime or investigation. They use fear and urgency to pressure victims into paying money. The article confirms that organised rackets targeted senior citizens through digital arrests, though it does not describe every communication method.

The alleged financial mechanism involves a mule account. Victims’ money is directed into an account supplied for the scheme, including the company account linked to the accused. The CJI said ₹1.90 crore taken from an 81-year-old in Ernakulam was deposited there. The court also referred to money deposited in Hong Kong and Bangkok.

These cases can therefore involve several states and countries, victims, accounts, and investigating agencies. That complexity helps explain the Supreme Court’s refusal to consolidate the complaints for the accused’s convenience. The CJI called the offences digital dacoity and demanded stringent action against those involved.