Supreme Court Calls Cybercrime “Digital Dacoity”: 35 Digital Arrest Cases Not Consolidated
Supreme Court Calls Digital Arrest Cybercrime “Digital Dacoity”, Refuses to Consolidate 35 Cases
New Delhi, October 28, 2026: The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised organised cybercrime involving so-called “digital arrests”, describing such offences as “digital dacoity”. The Court also refused to consolidate 35 cybercrime cases pending against two persons across 12 states.
Supreme Court Takes Strong View of Digital Arrest Scams
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard a plea seeking consolidation of multiple criminal cases connected with alleged cybercrime and digital-arrest offences.
During the proceedings, the Bench expressed serious concern about organised criminal networks allegedly using digital arrest tactics to intimidate victims and obtain money through fraudulent means.
The Chief Justice described digital arrest-related offences as “digital dacoity” and stressed the seriousness of organised cybercrime, particularly when elderly and retired people are targeted.
The Court’s observations underline the growing judicial concern over scams in which criminals allegedly impersonate police officers, government officials or judicial authorities and use video calls and fabricated legal proceedings to pressure victims into transferring money.
35 Cybercrime Cases Pending Across 12 States
The case before the Supreme Court involved a request to consolidate criminal proceedings pending in multiple states.
According to reports of the proceedings, around 35 cybercrime cases are pending against the two petitioners in different parts of the country, including Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana and Gujarat.
The allegations relate to the use of a company bank account as a so-called mule account for receiving money allegedly connected with cybercrime.
The petitioners argued that the cases should be consolidated because similar allegations were being investigated by different agencies. They also claimed that their account had allegedly been misused.
The Supreme Court, however, did not accept the request to bring the cases together at this stage. The petition was ultimately withdrawn.
Why the Supreme Court Refused to Consolidate the Cases
The Bench emphasised that the convenience of an accused cannot automatically take priority over the interests of victims and investigating agencies operating in different jurisdictions.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned why victims should have to travel to Delhi merely because an accused wanted multiple proceedings consolidated in one location.
The Court indicated that consolidation could potentially be considered where it was justified by investigative requirements, but it would not allow the process to interfere with investigations being conducted in different states.
The Court’s position highlights an important issue in modern cybercrime investigations: online financial fraud can involve victims, bank accounts, intermediaries and alleged offenders located across multiple states and even different countries.
₹1.90 Crore Cyber Fraud Case Mentioned During Hearing
During the hearing, the Chief Justice referred to an alleged case involving an 81-year-old man from Ernakulam, Kerala, who was reportedly defrauded of approximately ₹1.90 crore.
The Court noted that the money was allegedly transferred into a mule account connected with the proceedings.
The example illustrated the severe financial impact that digital arrest scams can have on senior citizens and other vulnerable victims.
What Is a Digital Arrest Scam?
A digital arrest scam is a form of cyber-enabled financial fraud in which criminals allegedly impersonate law-enforcement officers, government officials, judges or other authorities.
The victim may receive a phone call or video call and be falsely informed that their name, mobile number, bank account or identity document is connected to a criminal investigation.
The criminals may then threaten the victim with arrest and instruct them to remain on a video call while demanding money for supposed verification, security deposits or other fabricated legal requirements.
These scams exploit fear, urgency and the victim’s trust in official institutions.
Why Senior Citizens Are Being Targeted
The Supreme Court expressed particular concern about organised cybercrime networks targeting senior citizens and retired people.
Older victims may be especially vulnerable when criminals use the identity of trusted institutions such as the police, courts, banks or government departments.
Fraudsters can create a highly convincing scenario using fake documents, uniforms, official-looking backgrounds, video calls and threatening language.
The financial consequences can be devastating when victims transfer their lifetime savings under pressure.
Digital Arrest Scams Are More Than Ordinary Online Fraud
The Supreme Court’s remarks demonstrate how seriously organised digital fraud is being viewed by the judiciary.
Unlike a conventional phishing message or isolated online scam, digital arrest operations can involve multiple individuals, bank accounts, mule accounts, cryptocurrency or international transfers and coordinated impersonation.
Such operations can therefore create complicated investigations involving multiple states and jurisdictions.
What Should You Do If Someone Claims You Are Under Digital Arrest?
- Do not transfer money. Never send money simply because someone claims you are under investigation.
- End the suspicious call. Do not remain on a video call with an unknown person claiming to be a police or government officer.
- Verify independently. Contact the relevant police department or government organisation through its official contact channel.
- Protect your banking information. Never disclose your OTP, PIN, password or other confidential banking credentials.
- Preserve evidence. Keep screenshots, phone numbers, messages, transaction details and other relevant evidence.
- Report the fraud quickly. If money has already been transferred, contact your bank and the appropriate cybercrime authorities immediately.
Background Video: Supreme Court and Digital Arrest Fraud
The following video is provided as background context on the Supreme Court’s earlier scrutiny of digital arrest-related cybercrime. It was published by OTV before the latest October 28, 2026 hearing and should not be interpreted as video coverage of today’s proceedings.
Video credit: OTV / OdishaTV. The video is used for contextual and informational purposes.
Supreme Court’s Wider Concern Over Digital Arrest Fraud
The latest proceedings form part of the Supreme Court’s broader concern about the growing threat of digital arrest scams in India.
The Court had previously taken note of the issue after reports involving victims who were allegedly threatened by fraudsters impersonating law-enforcement and judicial authorities.
In subsequent proceedings, the Court also examined issues relating to banking safeguards and mechanisms that could help respond to cyber fraud.
The continuing judicial attention shows that digital financial fraud is increasingly being treated as a serious organised-crime challenge rather than merely an individual online scam.
What the Latest Supreme Court Development Means
The refusal to consolidate the 35 cases does not mean that the allegations against the petitioners have been finally decided on their merits. Instead, the immediate issue before the Court concerned the request to bring multiple criminal proceedings together.
The petitioners ultimately withdrew their plea, while the separate investigations can continue according to law.
For victims of cybercrime, the proceedings also reinforce an important principle: investigative convenience for an accused cannot automatically override the interests of victims or the independent investigations being conducted by state authorities.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court described digital arrest-related cyber offences as “digital dacoity.”
- The Court refused to consolidate 35 cybercrime cases involving two persons across multiple states.
- The Bench expressed particular concern about senior citizens and retired people being targeted.
- An alleged ₹1.90 crore fraud involving an 81-year-old Kerala resident was cited during the hearing.
- The Court stressed that the convenience of accused persons cannot automatically override victims’ rights and investigations.
- Digital arrest scams typically rely on impersonation, fear, urgency and fraudulent demands for money.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court call digital arrest scams?
The Supreme Court described digital arrest-related cyber offences as “digital dacoity.”
How many cybercrime cases were involved?
Reports of the proceedings state that 35 cybercrime cases were pending against the two persons across 12 states.
What is a mule account?
A mule account is a bank account used to receive, transfer or move money connected with suspected financial crime. Account holders may knowingly or unknowingly become involved in fraudulent transactions.
Can someone be digitally arrested through a video call?
A person should be extremely cautious if someone claims that they are under “digital arrest” and demands money through a video call. Such demands are a recognised warning sign of cyber fraud.
What should I do if I have lost money to a cyber scam?
Contact your bank immediately, preserve transaction and communication records, and report the incident promptly through the appropriate cybercrime reporting channels.
