Introduction
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Chirania
Matters: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications Nos. 7940/2025 and 7943/2025 — Adnan Haidar Bhai and Rahul Jagdish Bhai Jadhav
FIR: No. 3/2025, Cyber Police Station, Jodhpur, registered on 14.05.2025
Decision Date: 27 November 2025
Case Background
Complainants:
Prem Mohan Govila, aged about 84 years, and his wife.
Allegations:
Unknown persons impersonating cybercrime and police officials allegedly threatened the complainants with so-called “digital arrest” and coerced them into transferring a total sum of ₹2,02,00,000 between 29.04.2025 and 08.05.2025 into multiple bank accounts. During investigation, the Investigating Officer traced approximately ₹45,00,000 of the defrauded amount to bank accounts associated with the present petitioners.
Procedural History:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR. Their bail applications before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur were rejected on 26.06.2025 and 02.07.2025, respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking enlargement on bail.
Investigative Inputs:
The Court was apprised of investigative reports submitted by the ACP/Investigating Officer dated 11.08.2025 and 14.10.2025, which contained transaction trails, bank-statement analyses, and information indicating a nexus among several accused persons allegedly involved in the offence, including the petitioners.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the petitioners accused of cyber-extortion and related offences were entitled to bail at the present stage of the investigation.
- Whether the documentary evidence, including bank statements and investigative reports, established a prima facie link between the petitioners and the receipt of the allegedly extorted funds.
- Whether the ongoing and developing stage of the investigation, with other accused persons yet to be apprehended, justified denial of bail to prevent interference with the investigation.
- The extent to which the seriousness of “digital arrest” scams affecting vulnerable citizens should weigh against grant of bail.
Parties’ Submissions
Petitioners:
The petitioners asserted their innocence, denied having received any amount connected with the alleged offence, and contended that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, thereby seeking enlargement on bail. However, the documentary bank-statement evidence produced during investigation was not effectively disputed.
State / Investigating Officer:
The State opposed the bail applications, submitting that the petitioners were part of a coordinated network involved in impersonation-based cyber extortion targeting elderly victims. It was argued that investigation had revealed transaction trails showing transfers into the petitioners’ accounts and that only a few accused persons had been arrested while several others remained at large. The State further submitted that the investigation was ongoing and that custodial detention was necessary to facilitate further tracing of funds and identification of other conspirators.
Court’s Observations and Findings
Seriousness of the Offences:
The Court emphasized the gravity of the offences alleged, noting that the seriousness of the charges remains a relevant consideration at the bail stage even where the offences may be triable by a Magistrate.
Evidentiary Weight at Bail Stage:
Relying on the investigative reports and bank-statement records, the Court observed that out of the total amount of approximately ₹2.02 crore alleged to have been extorted, a sum of about ₹45 lakh was traced to accounts linked with the petitioners, thereby prima facie undermining their denial of involvement.
Status of Investigation:
The investigation was found to be at a developing or nascent stage, with several individuals allegedly involved in the offence yet to be apprehended and further financial tracing required. The Court held that release of the petitioners at such stage could potentially affect the investigation.
Concerns Regarding “Digital Arrest” Scams:
The Court also recorded broader systemic concerns relating to the increasing prevalence of “digital arrest” frauds, including rapid layering and diversion of funds, use of mule accounts, conversion of proceeds into cryptocurrency, misuse of accounts belonging to unsuspecting or illiterate individuals, and the operational challenges faced by ordinary police officers in investigating technologically sophisticated cyber offences. The Court interacted with senior cyber-crime officials and took assistance of Amicus Curiae to examine these issues.
Credibility Assessment:
The Court observed that the petitioners had not effectively rebutted the documentary financial evidence placed on record, which prima facie indicated their connection with the receipt of the alleged fraud proceeds.
Final Order and Directions
Bail Outcome:
The bail applications, namely S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications Nos. 7940/2025 and 7943/2025, were dismissed, and the petitioners were not enlarged on bail.
Primary Reasons for Rejection:
The Court based its decision principally on (i) the documentary financial evidence linking the petitioners to receipt of the alleged extorted funds, (ii) the ongoing nature of the investigation with several accused persons yet to be apprehended, and (iii) the seriousness and societal impact of the alleged offences.
Systemic Observations and Directions:
During the course of hearing, the Court highlighted the need for coordinated action among State authorities, cyber-crime units, banks, and central agencies such as the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), and the Ministry of Home Affairs to effectively address emerging cyber-fraud mechanisms. Particular concerns were noted regarding mule accounts, rapid multi-layer transfers, cryptocurrency conversions, misuse of ATM withdrawals, and the vulnerability of digitally inexperienced victims.
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
- At the bail stage, documentary financial trails, including bank statements and transaction analyses, can play a decisive role where they prima facie link an accused person to receipt of crime proceeds.
- Courts are likely to decline bail where investigation is ongoing, especially where other accused persons remain at large and further tracing of funds is necessary.
- The decision reflects judicial recognition of the growing complexity of cyber-extortion schemes, emphasizing the importance of institutional coordination among police agencies, banks, and national cyber-crime authorities to detect, trace, and prevent fraud proceeds.