“Ruthlessly” is how the Supreme Court says digital arrest scamsters must be dealt with, and it declined to let two named accused have the FIRs against an alleged racket clubbed; the petitioners withdrew their plea.
New Delhi: Two petitioners wanted several FIRs registered across States against an alleged digital arrest extortion racket consolidated. The Supreme Court on October 28, 2026 would not accept that, said digital arrest scamsters must be dealt with ruthlessly, and observed that the convenience of the accused cannot override the rights of victims. The petitioners then withdrew the plea [Gourab Kumar Saha and Another v. Union of India and Others].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana formed the Bench. The allegations against the petitioners are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits of any case against them, and the presumption of innocence applies.
The Bench’s response
The Bench did not accept the contention. It observed that the convenience of accused persons cannot override the rights of victims or derail independent investigations by State police, and that investigation should take place where the victims were defrauded. The Chief Justice called digital arrest scams far more serious than ordinary extortion and said those involved must be dealt with in the most ruthless manner. If the law has any scope to punish them before trial, he added, that must also be adopted.
Justice Bagchi cautioned the petitioners against being used as tools to stall investigations across the country, telling them that they were not only a foot soldier in the crime. These were oral observations, and no formal written directions have been reported. After the Bench’s remarks, the petitioners withdrew the petition.
What the petitioners argued
The petitioners are named as accused in one such cybercrime case. Their counsel told the Court that the petitioners’ company bank account was used as a mule account without their knowledge, and that after discovering the fraud they had complained to the authorities in Jammu and Kashmir.
It was argued that the Mandir Marg Cyber Police in Delhi was already investigating the receipt and layering of the funds, so parallel investigations in different States would prejudice the petitioners. These are the petitioners’ contentions and have not been tested.
A suo motu case already under way
The Supreme Court is already seized of digital arrest scams in a suo motu case. These are scams in which fraudsters pose as law enforcement or court officials and extort money by claiming the victim is under virtual arrest. In August 2026 the Court asked the Centre, the States and Union Territories, the Reserve Bank of India and investigating agencies to coordinate to curb the scams and to speed up recovery of victims’ money, and asked the Reserve Bank to frame an SOP on temporary debit holds on mule accounts linked to cyber fraud or money laundering.
After the withdrawal
With the plea withdrawn, the FIRs registered in different States stay with the police and courts where they were filed. Whether the petitioners are victims whose account was misused, as they contend, or participants in the alleged racket, as the prosecution may say, is for the investigation and trial. The order records no finding either way.
Case Title: Gourab Kumar Saha and Another v. Union of India and Others (case number not available)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: counsel not named in the available record.