‘Matter of National Security’: How a Delhi Couple Was Kept Under ‘Digital Arrest’ and Duped of ₹14 Crore
A New Face of Cybercrime: Digital Arrest Through Fear and Impersonation
In a disturbing instance of cyber-enabled fraud, a Delhi-based doctor couple was allegedly kept under what investigators describe as “digital arrest” for over two weeks and duped of nearly ₹14.85 crore by fraudsters impersonating officials from law enforcement agencies.
The case exposes how fear of arrest, misuse of national security rhetoric, and impersonation of authorities are being deployed to psychologically restrain victims and extract large sums of money without physical confinement.
Timeline of the Alleged Fraud
According to Delhi Police, the fraud occurred between December 24 and January 9, during which the accused maintained continuous contact with the victims through phone and video calls.
An e-FIR was registered on Saturday, and the Cyber Crime Unit of Delhi Police has launched a full-scale investigation to trace the bank accounts and individuals involved.
How the ‘Digital Arrest’ Began
Victim Indira Taneja, a resident of Greater Kailash, stated that the first call came on December 24 around noon, from a person claiming to be an official of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
She was told:
Her mobile number would be disconnected due to complaints of obscene calls
An FIR had already been registered against her in Maharashtra
Arrest warrants had been issued in her name
The call was then escalated to a video call with a man dressed in a police uniform, lending credibility to the deception.
Impersonation of Police and Use of Visual Props
During the video call, banners reading “Colaba Police” were visible behind the caller. According to the victim, this visual setup made the narrative appear authentic.
The impersonator alleged that:
A Canara Bank account in her name was involved in money laundering
The alleged transactions were linked to national security
Immediate cooperation was mandatory to avoid arrest
Exploitation of Medical Vulnerability
The couple informed the callers that:
They could not travel to Mumbai
The husband was recovering from surgery at AIIMS
He was still on antibiotics and required a walker for mobility
They had no family support in India, as their children lived abroad
Despite repeated explanations, the pressure allegedly continued unabated.
‘Verification Like Bail’: Psychological Coercion and Isolation
When the couple refused to travel, the fraudsters suggested an alternative arrangement:
The victim would remain under “verification”
The process was compared to bail verification
She would be “released” after verification was completed
Crucially, the couple was allegedly instructed:
Not to contact anyone
To remain continuously available on phone and video calls
To comply with directions without seeking legal advice
Investigators believe this forced isolation was central to maintaining psychological control.
Fraud Comes to Light After Calls Stop
The scam reportedly came to light only after:
The calls abruptly stopped on January 9
The couple realised something was amiss
Authorities were subsequently approached
By then, the couple had allegedly transferred ₹14.85 crore to multiple bank accounts.
Statutory Provisions Likely to Be Invoked
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 316 – Cheating
Section 318 – Cheating by personation
Section 319 – Criminal breach of trust
Section 336 – Forgery for purpose of cheating
Section 61 – Criminal conspiracy
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66D – Cheating by personation using computer resources
Section 43 – Unauthorised access and data misuse
Code of Criminal Procedure / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Provisions relating to electronic evidence, e-FIR, and bank account tracing
Constitutional Dimensions
The case touches upon core constitutional safeguards:
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection from psychological coercion and unlawful restraint
Article 22 – Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention
Article 300A – Protection of property from unlawful deprivation
The concept of “digital arrest”, while not legally recognised, raises serious concerns about indirect deprivation of liberty without due process.
Judicial Principles and Precedents
Indian courts have repeatedly held that:
Fear-induced consent is no consent in law
Impersonation of public servants aggravates the offence of cheating
Psychological confinement can amount to unlawful restraint if liberty is curtailed through coercion
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court recognised misuse of authority and deception as grounds for strict criminal action.
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court highlighted how misuse of digital platforms can severely impact individual liberty.
Police Investigation Underway
Delhi Police has stated that:
Multiple bank accounts are being traced
Digital footprints and IP addresses are under examination
Coordination with banks and national cyber agencies is ongoing
Investigators believe the accused may be part of a larger organised cybercrime network, targeting elderly individuals and NRIs using law enforcement impersonation.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call on Cyber Psychological Crimes
This case underscores a dangerous evolution in cybercrime — where liberty is curtailed without physical custody, using fear, authority symbols, and isolation.
The alleged fraud shows how:
National security rhetoric can be weaponised
Visual impersonation can bypass scepticism
Psychological coercion can substitute physical force
As cybercrime grows more sophisticated, law enforcement and public awareness must evolve to recognise that digital confinement is as real and damaging as physical restraint.

Comments
Post a Comment