Delhi High court Denies Bail in ₹1.75 Crore Digital Fraud Case, Highlights Rising Tech Crime Complexity
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Mohit, accused in a sophisticated digital fraud case involving ₹1.75 crore. justice Amit Mahajan’s decision underscored the increasing difficulty in investigating tech-enabled crimes due to the misuse of technology by fraudsters.
The case originated from a First Data Report (FIR) registered on May 13, 2024, with the Special Cell, invoking Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology act, 2000.
According to the complainant, Rajan George, he was defrauded after being contacted by individuals posing as Mumbai Police officers. These individuals falsely claimed a SIM card had been fraudulently issued using his Aadhaar details and linked him to an ongoing money laundering investigation involving Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal.
The fraudsters employed elaborate tactics, including video calls featuring individuals in police uniforms staged in a simulated police station surroundings, and presented forged documents purportedly from the Supreme Court and the CBI. Through intimidation and deception, they coerced George into revealing personal and banking information, ultimately leading to the transfer of ₹1.75 crore to accounts under the accused’s control.
Justice Mahajan noted the intricate nature of these crimes, stating they “involve intricate methods and multiple dialog devices and are used to mislead unsuspecting victims.” The Court emphasized the challenges faced by law enforcement, observing that such crimes are “on the rise and tend to be significantly harder to crack due to the boon of technology that is effectively misused by crooks to wreak havoc and evade law enforcement.”
the Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail, stating that investigators require “fair play in the joints” to effectively pursue the investigation. It found no evidence at this stage to suggest the investigation was motivated by malice or that Mohit had been falsely implicated.
While dismissing the bail application, Justice Mahajan clarified that the observations made were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail plea and shoudl not prejudice the outcome of the trial or be interpreted as an opinion on the case’s merits.
Case Title: Mohit vs State of NCT of Delhi
bench: Justice amit Mahajan
Date of Order: September 25, 2025