India’s expanding digital ecosystem, while transformative, has also opened the floodgates to a new generation of crimes—one of the most dangerous being digital arrest fraud. This cybercrime involves fraudsters impersonating law enforcement authorities to falsely accuse individuals of offenses such as money laundering, cyber pornography, or drug smuggling.
These impersonators initiate video or phone calls, often using forged documents or deepfake visuals, and threaten the target with immediate “digital arrest” unless a bribe or “bail amount” is paid. In some cases, entire syndicates operate across state lines, targeting vulnerable individuals. Recent cases, especially from West Bengal, where life imprisonment was awarded, underline the increasing judicial sensitivity to such crimes.
Digital Arrest Fraud: The Modus Operandi and Real-Life Incidents
Digital arrest fraud typically starts with a call or message impersonating a police officer, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) official, or Enforcement Directorate (ED) agent. The victim is falsely accused of heinous crimes and pressured to attend a fabricated “virtual hearing” or face arrest.
Psychological manipulation is central to this tactic, using deepfake videos, spoofed official numbers, and fake notices to appear legitimate.
A high-profile case in April 2024 from West Bengal revealed a multi-layered digital arrest syndicate. A Kolkata businessman was contacted via WhatsApp video by fraudsters claiming to be from the CBI and was accused of illegal cryptocurrency dealings. He was threatened with digital arrest unless he paid ₹50 lakh as “bail.” Under psychological distress, he complied but later filed a complaint.
The investigation led to the arrest of a Delhi-based cyber syndicate. The Kolkata Sessions Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under sections related to aggravated forgery, impersonation, and cheating—both under the Indian Penal Code and the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 20231.
Constitutional Framework and Digital Rights
Digital arrest fraud directly violates core tenets of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 guarantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty, including protection from arbitrary arrest and coercion—whether by the state or by fraudulent actors impersonating state agents2.
When individuals are deceived into believing they are under arrest without due process, their constitutional liberty is effectively nullified.
Furthermore, Article 20 protects individuals from self-incrimination and ensures conviction only by due legal authority. Fraudsters often manipulate victims into admitting guilt under duress, violating this essential safeguard3.
Such frauds also infringe upon a person’s right to dignity and privacy, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the right to privacy was affirmed as integral to Article 214.
Statutory and Criminal Law Framework in India
While no law specifically defines or addresses “digital arrest,” several statutory provisions apply to crimes associated with such fraud.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 contains relevant sections:
Section 66D – Cheating by personation using a computer resource (punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine)5.
Section 66C – Identity theft, a common element in digital arrest scams.
Section 67 – Use of obscene content or fabricated digital evidence to threaten victims.
Under the Indian Penal Code, the following sections are frequently invoked:
Section 419 – Cheating by personation
Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security
Section 468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating6
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has introduced updated provisions:
Clause 317
Clause 318
Clause 336 – This clause was invoked in West Bengal’s 2024 case to treat digital impersonation as organized psychological terrorism, leading to life imprisonment7.
Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
The judiciary has begun to take digital arrest fraud seriously, especially given its implications for public trust in law enforcement. In State of West Bengal v. Abhijit Roy (2024), the Kolkata Sessions Court handed out a life sentence to the mastermind of a pan-India digital arrest racket. The court emphasized that impersonating state authority for financial gain not only constitutes financial fraud but also erodes constitutional governance and civic trust in the legal system⁸.
Similarly, in Ritu Mehra v. Union of India (2023), the Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of deep-fake technology being used to impersonate judges and police officials during a digital arrest scam. The court directed the Union Government to formulate regulatory guidelines on the misuse of artificial intelligence, including mandating watermarking of official government video communications⁹.
In another case, State of Maharashtra v. Armaan Khan (2023), the Bombay High Court convicted a fraudster who had emailed a forged arrest notice to a woman, allegedly from the Mumbai Police Cyber Cell. Although no money was extorted, the psychological harm and violation of digital dignity were recognized. The court found the act to be a violation of Article 21 and upheld his conviction under Sections 419 and 468 IPC¹⁰.
Policy and Regulatory Measures
The Ministry of Home Affairs has taken proactive steps through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to combat rising cybercrime. Citizens are encouraged to report such incidents on the dedicated 1930 cyber fraud helpline. However, enforcement remains inconsistent across states, and many police departments are yet to receive adequate training in cyber forensics¹¹.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has advised telecom providers to tighten caller ID authentication systems. Additionally, the Reserve Bank of India has issued cautionary circulars warning against calls or messages demanding digital bail or payment under threat of arrest, urging consumers to verify legal communications via official portals¹².
Need for Reform and the Way Forward
India’s criminal justice system must evolve in tandem with technological advancements. There is an urgent need to enact a standalone law targeting digital impersonation of public officials. Such a law must include specific penalties for impersonating judicial, police, or enforcement authorities using AI tools.
Additionally, AI governance and digital forensic capabilities must be strengthened through state-funded infrastructure. Deep-fake technology should be regulated with penalties for misuse, and verified communication systems must be adopted by law enforcement for public interaction.
Moreover, public awareness campaigns are essential. Schools, colleges, and workplaces must integrate basic cyber safety education to immunize citizens from falling prey to such frauds. Cyber literacy must not remain a privilege of the educated elite but a fundamental civic skill.
Conclusion
Digital arrest fraud represents a modern form of coercion that blends technology, deception, and psychological pressure. It threatens not only individual liberty but also the credibility of India’s democratic institutions. While constitutional rights under Articles 20 and 21 offer a framework of protection, their enforcement in the digital realm remains underdeveloped.
The imposition of life imprisonment in recent cases like the West Bengal judgment sends a clear message that digital fraud—when it erodes institutional trust and personal liberty—deserves the harshest punishment. But to truly combat this menace, it’s a high time for Indian Legislature to think critically and enact strict laws specifically dealing with these upraised digital crimes, where in this smart era no person can think of their life without dealing with internet and technology, “Digital Arrest” a serious threat to society and security.
References:
State of West Bengal v. Abhijit Roy, Kolkata Sessions Court Judgment, 2024.
Constitution of India, Article 21.
Constitution of India, Article 20.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66D.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420, 467, 468.
