Gujarat High Court Slams Police for Naming Man in ₹78.99 Lakh Cybercrime Case Without Evidence

The Gujarat High Court has reprimanded an Ahmedabad cybercrime investigating officer for allegedly implicating an innocent man in a ₹78.99 lakh fraud case, demanding an affidavit explaining the evidence against him.

Justice Hasmukh Suthar questioned why the police had named the man as an accused when they had allegedly failed to establish his involvement in the cybercrime. The court also raised concerns over allegations that the police assaulted him and pressured him to confess.

“Just because you have been granted authority, it does not mean you can punish the innocent,” the judge told the investigating officer, warning that failure to justify the action could invite legal consequences.

High Court Questions Police Investigation

The case came before the High Court after the man filed a petition seeking to quash the complaint against him. He argued that the police had no evidence linking him to the alleged fraud and that he had been falsely implicated.

During the hearing, Justice Suthar questioned whether the investigating officer was attempting to protect the actual perpetrators by naming the petitioner's brother or another family member as an accused.

“If you cannot get hold of the actual accused, can you simply name his brother or family member as the accused?” the court asked.

The judge expressed concern over the investigation and directed the police to submit an affidavit specifying the evidence on which the man had been named as an accused.

Court Questions Basis for Naming Accused

The High Court also criticised the police inspector's handling of the cybercrime investigation when the government sought to defend the officer.

“As a Police Inspector handling cybercrime, do you not even know how to conduct an investigation? You do not even possess a basic understanding of cybercrimes,” the court remarked.

The judge further questioned the basis for implicating the petitioner, observing that no money had allegedly been credited to his bank account.

“On what grounds, then, can you arrest them?” the court asked, questioning the decision to name the man in the case despite the alleged absence of financial evidence linking him to the fraud.

The court also suggested that the FIR had been drafted in a manner that could shield the actual perpetrators and urged the officer to act responsibly.

Police Asked to Explain or Face Legal Action

Justice Suthar issued a stern warning to the investigating officer, making it clear that the police could not arbitrarily name individuals as accused simply because they had the authority to investigate and arrest.

“Have at least some fear of the Almighty,” the judge said while reprimanding the officer.

The court directed the police to explain their actions through an affidavit and warned that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation could lead to legal action.

The petition seeks the quashing of the complaint against the man. The court's demand for an explanation places the investigating officer's handling of the case under scrutiny.