InquirerMimaropa drug bust in Palawan yields ₱51,884 worth of ‘shabu’PunchMadrid apologise to Chinese people over Mbappé’s commentsThe Jerusalem PostIDF kills three terrorists in Gaza, including Hamas Nukhba who kidnapped Alexander Dancyg on Oct. 7Daily MaverickWHAT’S COOKING: Asparagus spears with rosemary-infused Parmesan butter creamESPNThe joy and pain that define baseball were in full force in Rays' incredible Game 4 winColliderMichael Bay’s ‘Black Hawk Down’ Replacement Officially Has a New Streaming BaseCapital FMRights groups sue State over alleged political violence ahead of 2027 pollsThe RegisterNeocloud thinks AI agents - not meatbags - will be its main customersZDF heuteEntdecken Sie das ZDF-NachrichtenstudioGhaflaLynn Ngugi Defends Mercy Masika’s Biblical Wife Masterclass Amid BacklashNHK 社会熊本地震3か月 イオン 一部エリア営業再開の意向 遺族に示すالنهارأستراليا تُشدّد الرقابة على مستحضرات الواقي من الشمس
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Wednesday, October 28, 2026

SC terms cyber crime as digital dacoity, refuses consolidation of cases

Translate

New Delhi, Terming cyber crime as "digital dacoity", the Supreme Court on Wednesday 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 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 cyber crime rackets targeting senior citizens through digital arrests, the CJI said those involved must face stringent action.

"An 81-year-old from Ernakulam 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 cyber crime 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 if Delhi police says 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 cyber crimes are pending against the accused in states including Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana and Gujarat.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

View the original on Hindustan Times →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.