New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a stern stance against the rising menace of ‘digital arrests’, terming the sophisticated cyber fraud as “prima facie digital dacoity”. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Surya Kant expressed grave concern over cybercriminals specifically targeting vulnerable senior citizens and pensioners, cautioning that securing bail in such cases would become exceedingly difficult.
During a recent hearing, the bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, declined a plea filed by two accused seeking the consolidation of 35 cybercrime FIRs registered against them across 12 states. The accused had allegedly used their company’s bank accounts to receive funds extorted through cyber frauds. Following the apex court’s refusal to entertain the petition, it was withdrawn.
Highlighting the severity of these crimes, the bench made strong oral observations. Justice Surya Kant stated that these “ruthless criminals” must be dealt with harshly for extorting the life savings of the elderly.
“If there is a scope in the law to really punish them pre-trial, that should also be resorted to,” the bench remarked, adding that if given the opportunity, the Supreme Court would cancel bail orders and prevent such accused individuals from securing bail from any court.
The court’s ire was drawn to a specific case involving an 81-year-old man from Ernakulam, Kerala, who was duped of Rs 1.90 crore. The stolen money was traced to ‘mule accounts’—bank accounts explicitly used to route illegal funds—operated by the accused side.
Government data reflects the alarming scale of digital arrest frauds across the country. Between January and August this year alone, over 21,900 complaints were registered nationwide, resulting in a reported financial loss of more than Rs 647 crore. This follows massive losses in previous years, with victims losing roughly Rs 1,935 crore in 2024 and Rs 1,211 crore in 2025.
The Supreme Court also pointed out severe systemic banking loopholes that facilitate these crimes. The bench questioned the effectiveness of bank KYC protocols, asking why banking systems fail to immediately freeze unusually large transactions that deviate from a customer’s regular financial history. The lack of prompt alerts to law enforcement agencies and the absence of physical verification for suspicious transfers were identified as critical flaws empowering these cyber fraud syndicates.