Mumbai: Court flags major lapses in “digital arrest” probe, says suspicion cannot replace proof

The fraudsters were in contact with the woman between December 2024 and February 2025. REPRESENTATION PIC/ISTOCK

In a major embarrassment for cybercrime investigators, a Dadar court acquitted a 26-year-old man arrested in a Rs 1.38 crore "digital arrest" cyber fraud case after finding that the prosecution failed to establish any concrete link between the accused and the crime.

Judicial Magistrate Nilesh N Dhend of the 62nd Court, Dadar, acquitted Ashish Kalubhai Hirpara, who the Cyber Police Station, Central Division, Worli, had arrested based on a complaint filed by Rohini Kanchanlal Bhatt, a senior citizen duped by fraudsters posing as CBI officers.

Digital arrest trap

According to the prosecution, between December 2024 and February 2025, the complainant received calls from fraudsters impersonating telecom officials and later CBI officers. She was falsely told her number was linked to money laundering and was threatened with arrest. Through WhatsApp video calls showing a fake police setup, she was coerced into transferring Rs 1,38,47,000 into multiple accounts.

Witnesses fail

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including Rohini Bhatt (complainant), bank officials who produced account statements, and investigating officers. However, the case suffered a major blow when Bhatt failed to identify the accused in court. She admitted that the accused never called or interacted with her, and that key witnesses (her relatives who transferred funds) were not examined.

Cash link not enough

The prosecution relied heavily on Rs 45 lakh being transferred to an account linked to ‘Rivaa Creation', allegedly belonging to the accused. But bank witnesses confirmed that the money was transferred out within minutes, the account balance dropped to Rs 21, and no cash withdrawal or personal use was established. The court noted there was no proof of wrongful gain or benefit to the accused.

Probe under fire

>> The court flagged serious lapses in the investigation, including…
>> No Call Detail Records (CDR) submitted
>> No Customer Application Forms (CAF) for phone numbers
>> No forensic lab report despite mobile seizure
>> No proof linking the accused to impersonation calls
>> Even the investigating officer admitted that no evidence of commission or financial benefit was found

Court verdict

>> The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove charges under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act, observing…
>> Suspicion cannot replace proof
>> Digital evidence is crucial in cybercrime cases
>> Burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution
>> The accused, in custody since May 2025, was ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case

Advocate Shirish Desai, defence punch

‘Advocate Shirish Desai, representing the accused, argued that the case was built purely on assumptions. "There is absolutely no direct evidence linking my client to the alleged fraud. The investigation failed to establish identity, intent, or benefit. Mere transfer of funds through an account cannot make someone a criminal," Desai submitted before the court.'