The Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to an accused in a Rs 7.17 crore digital arrest fraud, holding that custodial interrogation is necessary after Rs 4.03 crore of the defrauded amount was credited to his bank account.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Aurangabad: The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a man named in a digital arrest fraud case in which a doctor was allegedly pressured into paying Rs 7.17 crore, observing that the offence is serious and that custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary to investigate it [Anuj Satendra Saxena v. State of Maharashtra and Another].
Justice R.M. Joshi passed the order on October 5, 2026. The allegations against the applicant are untested, the Court has not tried the case, and the presumption of innocence applies to him.
The case
The FIR, registered at Ahilyanagar Taluka police station under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, alleges that a doctor was subjected to a digital arrest and made to pay Rs 7.17 crore. Of this, Rs 4.03 crore is alleged to have reached the applicant’s bank account and to have been withdrawn.
The applicant, represented by P.R. Dubey, said he runs a charitable institution, that a third person proposed a donation of Rs 20 lakh, and that he shared his bank details in that context. He claimed his phone had been hacked and that he is a victim and not a perpetrator. The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor R.P. Gour, submitted that a competent court at Kanpur had taken cognizance and had rejected his earlier plea, that withdrawing Rs 4.03 crore in a day is practically implausible given transaction and withdrawal limits, that prima facie material shows his involvement, and that he did not respond to a police notice.
What the Court said
The Court noted that different accounts are used for receiving the money in such frauds, found that there was “absolutely no material on record” to support the hacking claim, and relied on the Supreme Court’s suo motu guidelines on digital arrest. It held:
“The offence in question is serious in nature.”
“custodial interrogation in such cases is absolutely necessary in order to investigate into the crime”
The result
The Court found no reason or justification to protect the liberty of the applicant and held that the “Application stands dismissed.” The observations are made for deciding the bail plea and are not findings on guilt.
Why the order matters
The order shows how High Courts are treating account holders who receive the proceeds of digital arrest frauds: an unverified explanation offered after the event, such as a claim of hacking or a donation offer, will not by itself secure pre-arrest protection where the money trail points to the account and custodial interrogation is needed to identify those behind the scheme.
Case Title: Anuj Satendra Saxena v. State of Maharashtra and Another [Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1328 of 2026]
Bench: Justice R.M. Joshi, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocate P.R. Dubey for the applicant; APP R.P. Gour for the State