Supreme Court terms cybercrime as digital dacoity, refuses consolidation of cases

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Subscribed with another email? Logout and Login with that one.

Your active subscription(s)

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Products you've access to

Additional Subscription Benefits

Need help with your subscription?

Updated - October 28, 2026 01:59 pm IST - New Delhi

This image is used for representational purposes only. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Terming cybercrime as “digital dacoity”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28, 2026) refused to consolidate over 30 criminal complaints pending against two persons in 12 states for allegedly allowing the use of their company’s account as a mule for the commission of various offences.

“Digital arrests and such cyber offences are digital dacoity… there is no question of giving any judicial forum to such persons,” a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said.

Strongly condemning the organised cybercrime rackets targeting senior citizens through digital arrests, the CJI said those involved must face stringent action.

“An 81-year-old from Ernakulam (Kerala) was defrauded of ₹1.90 crore and his money was deposited in your mule account,” the CJI said.

“You decided to use the account of your company for cybercrime like digital arrest,” the Bench said while refusing to entertain the plea of Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari.

The Bench refused to allow the accused to use such proceedings to disrupt investigations in different States.

Justice Bagchi asked as to why victims should be forced to travel to Delhi merely for the convenience of an accused seeking consolidation.

“Your right to seek transfer of cases to a place of your convenience cannot override the right of the victims and the investigating agency… We can consider it if Delhi police say so for the convenience of investigation. We do not take your weight to dilute the investigation across the country,” Justice Bagchi said.

The CJI asked if a victim, whose defrauded money was deposited in Hong Kong and Bangkok, could be asked to go there for redress. The petitioner ultimately withdrew the plea. Thirty-five criminal cases pertaining to cybercrimes are pending against the accused in states including Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana and Gujarat.

Published - October 28, 2026 01:38 pm IST

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.