Dadar Court Acquits Accused in ₹1.38 Crore “Digital Arrest” Cyber Fraud Case, Cites Lack of Evidence

Mumbai-New Delhi : In a significant development that has raised concerns about the effectiveness of cybercrime investigations, a court in Dadar has acquitted a 26-year-old man who was earlier arrested in connection with a ₹1.38 crore “digital arrest” cyber fraud case. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish any clear or direct link between the accused and the alleged crime, leading to his release.

The judgment was delivered by Nilesh N Dhend of the 62nd Court. The accused, Ashish Kalubhai Hirpara, had been taken into custody by the Cyber Police Station of the Central Division in Worli based on allegations that he was involved in a large-scale cyber fraud network.

The case began with a complaint filed by Rohini Kanchanlal Bhatt, a senior citizen who claimed that she had been cheated by fraudsters posing as officials from the Central Bureau of Investigation. According to her statement, she was threatened with arrest and coerced into transferring a large sum of money in what is commonly known as a “digital arrest” scam.

As per the prosecution, the incident took place between December 2024 and February 2025. During this period, the complainant received multiple phone calls from individuals pretending to be telecom officials. They informed her that her mobile number was allegedly linked to illegal financial activities, including money laundering. The calls later escalated, with the fraudsters claiming to be officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation.

How the ‘Digital Arrest’ Cyber Fraud Happened

To make their claims appear real, the fraudsters conducted video calls through messaging platforms, showing a fake police setup in the background. This visual deception created fear and confusion, leading the victim to believe that she was under official investigation. Under continuous pressure and threats, she transferred ₹1,38,47,000 into several bank accounts provided by the fraudsters.

While the fraud itself was serious and well-documented, the main issue before the court was whether the accused could be directly connected to the crime. The prosecution presented seven witnesses, including the complainant, bank officials, and investigating officers. However, their testimonies failed to establish a strong case against the accused.

One of the most important setbacks for the prosecution was when the complainant failed to identify the accused in court. She clearly stated that she had never spoken to him and had no direct interaction with him at any point. This weakened the claim that he was personally involved in the fraud.

Additionally, key witnesses were not presented in court. These included relatives of the complainant who had helped transfer the money. Their absence created gaps in the chain of evidence, making it difficult to establish how the funds moved and who controlled them.

The prosecution relied heavily on financial records showing that ₹45 lakh from the total amount was transferred to a bank account linked to an entity named “Rivaa Creation,” which was allegedly associated with the accused. However, bank officials confirmed that the money was transferred out of the account within minutes, leaving a balance of only ₹21.

The court observed that there was no evidence to show that the accused had withdrawn the money, used it for personal benefit, or gained anything from the transaction. Without proof of financial gain or direct involvement, the case against him could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In his ruling, Magistrate Dhend emphasized that suspicion alone is not enough to convict a person in a criminal case. He stated that the prosecution must provide clear and reliable evidence to establish guilt. Since such evidence was missing, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The acquittal has sparked discussion among legal experts and law enforcement agencies. Cybercrime cases are often complex because they involve multiple layers, digital transactions, and individuals operating from different locations. This makes it difficult to identify the exact role of each person involved.

Experts have pointed out that criminals often use temporary or third-party bank accounts to move money quickly, making it hard to trace ownership and responsibility. In such cases, even if an account is linked to a person, it does not automatically prove their involvement in the crime.

The case also highlights the importance of proper investigation and evidence collection. Missing witnesses, incomplete documentation, and lack of direct proof can weaken even a strong case. Law enforcement agencies may need to adopt more advanced methods and coordination to handle such complex cybercrime investigations.

For the victim, the judgment may be disappointing, as it does not result in punishment for the accused. However, legal experts explain that the justice system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to ensure that innocent individuals are not wrongly convicted.

At the same time, the case brings attention to the growing threat of “digital arrest” scams. These scams rely on fear and impersonation of authority figures to force victims into transferring money. Authorities have repeatedly warned citizens to verify such claims and avoid making payments under pressure.

Officials have also clarified that no legitimate government agency demands money through phone calls or video calls. Any such request should be treated as suspicious and reported immediately to cybercrime authorities.

In conclusion, the decision of the Dadar court reinforces the principle that justice must be based on solid evidence. While the fraud itself remains a serious concern, the acquittal shows that courts require clear proof before holding someone guilty. The case is expected to influence how future cybercrime investigations and prosecutions are conducted in India.