Gujarat HC Pulls Up Police Over ‘Digital Arrest’ Probe, Says Focus On Recovering Senior Citizen’s Money
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The Gujarat High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which police are investigating cases of “digital arrest”, questioning whether investigators are doing enough to recover money lost by senior citizens in such scams.
The court observed that police often attribute such frauds to a lack of awareness among senior citizens, but questioned how effectively cybercrime investigators themselves were pursuing the money trail and helping victims recover their funds.
The remarks were made during the hearing of a digital arrest case in which a senior citizen had allegedly lost ₹60 lakh.
Court Questions ₹10 Lakh Recovery
During the hearing, the court questioned why the ₹10 lakh recovered from an arrested accused had not been returned to the complainant.
According to the court, the accused had allegedly rented out his bank account for use in the fraud and was willing to return the recovered amount to the victim. The court sought to know why the money had not yet been handed over to the complainant.
The court also questioned the investigation into another accused, Mohammad Danish, who was allegedly transferring proceeds of the digital arrest scam into accounts belonging to other accused persons.
HC Seeks Complete Money Trail
The High Court directed the investigating officer to prepare and submit a comprehensive chart tracing the movement of the allegedly defrauded money.
The chart is required to show the flow of funds from one bank account to another and identify the accounts through which the money was transferred.
The court further directed that all persons found to be involved in the transaction chain be made parties to the proceedings.
‘Who Is The Mastermind?’
The court observed that holders of “mule” bank accounts may have received commissions for allowing their accounts to be used, but questioned whether investigators were focusing sufficiently on the people behind the larger operation.
The court sought to know who the alleged mastermind was, rather than limiting the investigation to account holders who may have played a smaller role.
The court also made it clear that the fact that a case involves a “digital arrest” scam should not become a reason for an inadequate investigation.
Investigating Officer To Appear In Person
The High Court has directed the investigating officer to remain personally present before it and explain the progress of the investigation.
The next hearing has been scheduled for September 30.
