Forged SC order, crypto trail: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in Rs 2.65 crore ‘digital arrest’ case

Case of digital arrest

• The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on August 6, 2025, at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Khanna, Ludhiana.
• The complainant alleged that he was placed under “digital arrest” and enticed into transferring over Rs 2.65 crore into various accounts.
• The accused reportedly used a forged order of the Supreme Court to facilitate the deception.
• The investigation revealed that the siphoned funds were distributed across 18 firms throughout India.
• Furthermore, the co-accused allegedly used a portion of the stolen funds (approximately Rs 8.62 lakh) to purchase cryptocurrency through the mobile app, which was later sold to credit the accounts of other accomplices.
• The prosecution contended that the accused played a central role in managing the illicit funds.
• Specifically, Rs 72.42 lakh was deposited into the account of KK Enterprises, Jalandhar.
• While the firm’s proprietor is a driver by profession, the court found evidence that the accused maintained full access to the firm’s bank accounts.
• According to the state, the accused-petitioner gained control of these accounts by befriending the driver’s family through his wife’s beauty parlour business and promising to help them settle abroad.
• The prosecution further alleged that the money was withdrawn by the petitioner, with some amounts being deposited directly into his wife’s bank account.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sandeep Arora argurd that that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case.
• He has submitted that the petitioner has no connection with K.K. Enterprises, with whom part of the amount was deposited.
• It has been further submitted that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute, and if anything is found against him, then he is even ready to pay the amount.
• He further argued that there is no previous history of any criminal case against the petitioner, and the petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence, and thus, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

‘Anticipatory bail scuttle investigation’

• The petitioner indulged in illegal business and duped the complainant of a huge amount.
• The complainant was ‘digitally arrested’, and a sum of more than Rs 2.65 crore was transferred from his account on different dates.
• The money so transferred was deposited in various accounts, which include 18 firms/companies located in different districts of India.
• The investigation is at the initial stage, and in the facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be essential, and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation.