The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has refused anticipatory bail to Anuj Satendra Saxena in a case involving an alleged digital arrest fraud in which a doctor was reportedly pressured to pay ₹7.17 crore. Justice R. M. Joshi held that the allegations, including the transfer of ₹4.03 crore into the applicant’s bank account, warranted further investigation and custodial interrogation.
Background
The case arose from a complaint registered at Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
According to the first information report, the complainant, a doctor, was allegedly subjected to digital arrest fraud and pressured into transferring ₹7.17 crore. Of this amount, ₹4.03 crore was allegedly credited to Saxena’s bank account and subsequently withdrawn.
Saxena’s counsel argued that he ran a charitable institution and had been approached by a person offering a donation of ₹20 lakh. He claimed that his mobile phone had been hacked and that he was himself a victim. The prosecution opposed bail, questioning whether such a large amount could have been withdrawn in a single day and pointing to the absence of a response to a police notice.
Justice Joshi emphasised the difficulty of tracing money in digital fraud cases, where funds are routed through multiple bank accounts. The Court observed:
“Any frivolous or afterthought explanation by the persons whose accounts are credited with crime money would amount to lend encouragement to commission of such crimes.”
The Court further noted that Saxena’s claim of mobile phone hacking was not supported by material on record. It referred to the Supreme Court’s proceedings concerning victims of digital arrest and the guidelines issued for investigating such offences.
Considering the amount credited to the applicant’s account, the absence of supporting material for his hacking claim and the order passed by the competent court at Kanpur, the High Court found no justification to grant protection from arrest. It held that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the alleged crime and identify those responsible.
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Anuj Satendra Saxena v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
- Case Number: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1328 of 2026
- Judge: Justice R. M. Joshi
- Decision Date: 5 October 2026
