Gurgaon: A city court denied bail to an accused in a digital arrest case, warning that offences such as cybercrimes needed to be dealt with “stern hands” and deserved no leniency.Delhi resident Kshitij Mahara, who was accused of being a conspirator in the racket, had been arrested on Aug 27. On Monday, while rejecting his bail plea, additional sessions judge Sudeep Goel held that the Rs 23 lakh “digital arrest” scam targeting a 65-year-old man was part of an organised cyberfraud network in which “different accused played different roles”.In July 2025, complainant Virender Singh Rawat, a resident of Sector 102, was told that he had been placed under “digital arrest”. The caller told him that a bank account had been opened using his Aadhaar and that Rawat was “involved” in money laundering. Rawat was directed to transfer money to specified accounts. Rawat and his wife transferred Rs 15 lakh and Rs 8 lakh respectively.“Cybercrimes are on the rise with technological advancement,” observed Goel, adding that the investigation had revealed a network involving several accused and that telephonic conversations between Mahara and other accused had established a “chain of event” pointing to his alleged role in the conspiracy.The case relates to an FIR registered at Cyber West police station on Aug 25, 2025 under sections 318(4), 319 and 61(2) of BNS. According to the prosecution, Rawat received a WhatsApp call on July 29, 2025, from a person claiming to be a CBI officer.During the investigation, accused Anas Sheikh was arrested. Based on his disclosure statement, police found the involvement of Mahara and another accused, L Meikeingakpa Meitei alias Klose. Police said that Rs 8 lakh from the cheated amount was initially transferred to a charitable trust, while Rs 2.95 lakh reached an SBI account.Appearing for Mahara, advocate Saniyam Bhardwaj argued that his client had been falsely implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement. He submitted that Mahara had neither received any money nor had call-detail or financial links with the other accused. He also cited his mother’s stage-IV cancer and the recent birth of his child while seeking bail.Public prosecutor Jagbir Sahrawat opposed bail, describing the case as a serious cyberfraud involving impersonation of officials and a senior citizen. He argued that Mahara was an important part of the conspiracy and that his release could enable him to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or commit similar offences.The court noted that Mahara’s family circumstances did not warrant leniency given the allegations, his alleged role and the organised nature of the offence. It also apprehended that his release could lead to influence over witnesses.
