Mumbai: After a 51-year-old Gujarat man, arrested in the country’s biggest digital arrest scam involving the siphoning of over Rs 58 crore from a retired pharma executive, spent almost eight months in jail, a sessions court on Monday granted him bail after finding merit in the argument that no financial transactions or monetary benefits had been directly traced to his own accounts.Granting relief to Sureshkumar Patel, the court said, “ The prosecution has not filed any documentary evidence along with the chargesheet to show the nexus of the applicant with other accused persons. Further, after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no evidence collected against the applicant that the applicant has benefited from the alleged offence or any financial transaction is traced out in his bank account.”The prosecution’s case originated from a complaint filed by the victim, who was targeted in an elaborate cyber fraud between Aug and Sept 2025. The victim was placed under a “digital arrest” by fraudsters posing as officials from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the 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.Seeking bail, the defence argued that Patel had been in custody since Oct 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. Further, the defence 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.The prosecution strongly opposed the plea, expressing apprehension that Patel might assist other absconding accused or flee the country to evade trial.
