A 51-year-old man from Gujarat, arrested in connection with the country's largest digital arrest scam involving the siphoning of over Rs 58 crore from a retired pharma executive, was granted bail by a sessions court in Mumbai on Monday. Sureshkumar Patel, who spent nearly eight months in judicial custody, received relief after the court found merit in the argument that no financial transactions or monetary benefits had been directly traced to his personal accounts.
Court's Observations
Granting bail, the sessions court noted that the prosecution had not submitted any documentary evidence along with the chargesheet to establish a nexus between Patel and the other accused persons. The court further observed that after a thorough perusal of the record, no evidence was collected against Patel indicating that he had benefited from the alleged offence or that any financial transaction had been traced in his bank account.
Background of the Case
The prosecution's case originated from a complaint filed by the victim, a retired pharma executive, who was targeted in an elaborate cyber fraud between August and September 2025. The victim was placed under a digital arrest by fraudsters posing as officials from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Under the threat of arrest for alleged money laundering, the victim was coerced into transferring Rs 58.13 crore to various bank accounts.
Patel was arrested during the subsequent investigation into the money trail. The prosecution alleged that Patel collaborated with another accused whose wife held a bank account under the name Aircool Enterprises. This account allegedly received Rs 25 lakh of the extorted money, which was later distributed across seven other accounts. Police submitted that Patel facilitated the acquisition of this account and received commissions in cryptocurrency and cash.
Defence Arguments
Seeking bail, the defence argued that Patel had been in custody since October 2025 and that the investigation was already complete, with a chargesheet filed. It was further submitted that the entire case relied heavily on electronic and documentary evidence already in police custody, leaving no scope for tampering. The defence also pointed out that the prosecution lacked documentary evidence linking Patel to the co-accused, and that the allegations against him carried a maximum punishment of seven years, making him eligible for relief.
Prosecution's Opposition
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, expressing apprehension that Patel might assist other absconding accused or flee the country to evade trial. However, the court found the defence arguments convincing and granted bail on appropriate conditions.
