Digital Arrest Scams in India: Analysing Criminal Liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

PART 1

Digital Arrest Scams in India: Analysing Criminal Liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Author: Nitesh Dagar

Abstract

The rapid digitalisation of India’s financial and governance systems has significantly increased convenience for citizens. However, it has also facilitated the emergence of sophisticated cyber-enabled crimes. One such recent phenomenon is the “Digital Arrest Scam,” in which fraudsters impersonate police officers or officials from investigative agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), or customs authorities. Victims are falsely informed that they are under investigation for serious offences and are coerced into transferring money to avoid arrest or account seizure.

Although the term digital arrest has no legal recognition under Indian law, the growing number of such incidents demonstrates how criminals exploit fear, technology, and the lack of digital awareness. This article analyses the legal framework governing digital arrest scams under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). It also examines investigative challenges, evidentiary concerns, and the need for legal and institutional reforms to address this evolving cyber threat.

Introduction

India’s transition towards a digital economy has transformed banking, governance, education, and commerce. Initiatives such as Digital India, UPI, Aadhaar-enabled services, and online banking have enhanced efficiency and financial inclusion. However, these advancements have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.

One of the most alarming cyber frauds witnessed in recent years is the digital arrest scam. In such scams, fraudsters impersonate law enforcement officials through phone or video calls, falsely alleging that the victim’s Aadhaar number, mobile number, or bank account has been linked to offences such as money laundering, drug trafficking, or tax evasion. Victims are then threatened with immediate arrest unless they comply with the fraudsters’ instructions, which usually involve transferring money to designated bank accounts.

The psychological pressure created by these fraudulent communications often prevents victims from verifying the authenticity of the claims. Many individuals, including professionals, senior citizens, and students, have suffered significant financial losses because of such scams.

Importantly, Indian law does not recognise any concept of a “digital arrest.” Arrest can only be carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law, and no investigating agency is authorised to conduct an arrest through a video call or demand money to avoid legal action.

The increasing sophistication of these scams raises important legal questions regarding criminal liability, electronic evidence, cross-border investigations, and the adequacy of India’s existing cybercrime framework.

Understanding the Digital Arrest Scam

A digital arrest scam is a form of cyber-enabled financial fraud involving impersonation of public officials through electronic communication. The fraudsters generally follow a structured pattern:

The victim receives a call from a person claiming to represent the police, CBI, ED, RBI, customs authorities, or another government agency.

The caller alleges that the victim is connected to serious criminal activities such as money laundering, fake parcel delivery, drug trafficking, or financial fraud.

The victim is instructed to remain on a continuous video call and is warned not to contact family members or legal counsel.

Fake arrest warrants, identity cards, or court documents are displayed to create an appearance of authenticity.

Finally, the victim is instructed to transfer money to a so-called “verification account” or “safe account” for investigation purposes.

This entire process is based on intimidation and deception. The objective is to create panic so that the victim acts without questioning the legality of the demands.

Why “Digital Arrest” Has No Legal Recognition

Neither the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) contains any provision permitting a digital arrest.

Under Indian criminal procedure, an arrest must comply with statutory safeguards, including:

Identification of the arresting officer.

Communication of the grounds of arrest.

Compliance with procedural safeguards under the BNSS.

Production before the appropriate magistrate within the legally prescribed period where applicable.

Therefore, any claim that a person has been “digitally arrested” through a video call is legally baseless and constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Criminal Liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Although the BNS does not specifically define “digital arrest scams,” such conduct may attract liability under multiple provisions depending on the facts of each case.

1. Cheating

Where fraudsters deceive a victim and dishonestly induce them to transfer money, the offence of cheating is attracted. The essential ingredients include deception, dishonest intention, and wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

2. Personation

The impersonation of police officers, CBI officials, customs officers, or judges constitutes a serious criminal act because the offender intentionally assumes a false identity to deceive the victim.

3. Forgery of Electronic Documents

Many fraudsters prepare fake arrest warrants, forged government notifications, and fabricated investigation documents. Such electronic records may amount to forgery and the use of forged electronic documents.

4. Criminal Intimidation

Threatening victims with immediate arrest, imprisonment, freezing of bank accounts, or confiscation of property amounts to criminal intimidation where the threat is intended to compel compliance.

5. Extortion

If money is obtained by creating fear of legal injury or prosecution, the offence may also amount to extortion depending on the circumstances of the case.

Part 2

The Information Technology Act, 2000: Addressing Cyber-Enabled Fraud

While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) criminalises offences such as cheating, personation, forgery, criminal intimidation, and extortion, digital arrest scams are fundamentally cyber-enabled crimes. Consequently, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) plays a complementary role by specifically addressing offences committed through electronic communication and computer resources.

Section 66C: Identity Theft

Section 66C of the IT Act penalises the dishonest or fraudulent use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature. Fraudsters frequently misuse Aadhaar details, mobile numbers, or banking information to create a false impression of legitimacy. Such unauthorised use not only facilitates fraud but also constitutes identity theft under the Act.

Section 66D: Cheating by Personation Using Computer Resources

Section 66D is the most significant provision applicable to digital arrest scams. It criminalises cheating by personation through computer resources or communication devices. Fraudsters impersonate police officers, CBI officials, customs authorities, RBI representatives, or ED officers through phone calls, video conferencing applications, emails, and messaging platforms to deceive victims into transferring money.

This provision directly addresses the digital nature of such scams and supplements the offences of cheating and personation under the BNS.

Section 72: Breach of Confidentiality and Privacy

Section 72 provides punishment where confidential information obtained through electronic means is disclosed or misused without lawful authority. If fraudsters obtain personal data through unauthorised access and exploit it to intimidate victims, this provision may also become applicable.

Therefore, the combined application of the BNS and the IT Act provides a comprehensive legal framework to prosecute digital arrest scams, although neither statute expressly defines the offence.

Electronic Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

The success of any criminal prosecution arising from a digital arrest scam largely depends upon the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence. Recognising the increasing importance of digital records, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) modernises the law relating to evidence and expressly recognises electronic records as admissible evidence, subject to compliance with statutory requirements.

The following forms of electronic evidence commonly arise in digital arrest investigations:

Audio recordings of fraudulent calls.

Video call recordings.

WhatsApp chats and SMS messages.

Emails.

Bank transaction records.

CCTV footage.

IP address logs.

Call Detail Records (CDRs).

Digital forensic reports.

Screenshots of fraudulent communications.

The BSA emphasises the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence. Investigating agencies must preserve the chain of custody and ensure that digital records are collected in accordance with legal procedures to maintain their evidentiary value during trial.

Judicial Developments

Although Indian courts have not yet delivered a landmark judgment specifically on digital arrest scams, several judicial decisions concerning cybercrime, electronic evidence, and arrest procedures provide important legal guidance.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the legal requirements governing the admissibility of electronic evidence and reaffirmed the importance of statutory compliance while producing digital records before courts. The decision is particularly relevant where prosecution relies upon call recordings, video recordings, emails, or other electronic documents obtained during cybercrime investigations.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

The Supreme Court recognised practical challenges associated with electronic evidence and emphasised that procedural requirements should not defeat the administration of justice where genuine electronic evidence is available.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

Although decided before the rise of cybercrime, this landmark decision remains significant because it laid down constitutional safeguards governing lawful arrest. It reinforces the principle that no person may be deprived of liberty except through due process established by law. Consequently, the concept of a “digital arrest” has no legal recognition under Indian law.

These judicial decisions collectively demonstrate that digital investigations must satisfy constitutional safeguards while ensuring the authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence.

Practical Challenges in Investigation

Despite an expanding legal framework, the investigation and prosecution of digital arrest scams continue to face significant practical challenges.

Cross-Border Operations: Many cybercriminals operate from foreign jurisdictions, making investigation and extradition difficult.

Anonymous Digital Infrastructure: Fraudsters frequently use fake SIM cards, virtual numbers, encrypted communication platforms, and mule bank accounts to conceal their identities.

Rapid Transfer of Funds: Fraudulently obtained money is often transferred through multiple accounts within minutes, reducing the possibility of recovery.

Digital Evidence Preservation: Electronic evidence may be deleted, encrypted, or altered unless immediate forensic preservation measures are undertaken.

Lack of Public Awareness: Victims often comply with fraudulent demands because they are unfamiliar with legal arrest procedures and fear criminal prosecution.

These challenges demonstrate that effective enforcement requires not only robust legislation but also specialised cyber investigation units, technological expertise, and widespread public awareness.

Government Initiatives to Combat Digital Arrest Scams

Recognising the increasing prevalence of cyber-enabled financial fraud, the Government of India has adopted several preventive and investigative measures.

Key initiatives include:

National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal for reporting cyber offences.

Cyber Financial Fraud Helpline (1930) for immediate reporting of financial cyber fraud and facilitating prompt action to freeze suspicious transactions.

Establishment of specialised cybercrime police stations across various States.

Nationwide awareness campaigns warning citizens that no police officer, CBI official, ED officer, or any other law enforcement agency conducts arrests through video calls or demands money to avoid prosecution.

These initiatives reflect the Government’s shift from merely responding to cybercrime towards strengthening preventive cyber governance and enhancing public awareness.

Part 3

Critical Analysis: Is the Existing Legal Framework Adequate?

The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) represents a significant step towards modernising India’s criminal laws. However, digital arrest scams reveal that technological advancements often evolve faster than legislative reforms. Although the BNS, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 collectively provide mechanisms to prosecute offenders, none of these statutes specifically define or regulate the phenomenon of a digital arrest scam.

The absence of a statutory definition does not prevent prosecution, as existing provisions relating to cheating, personation, forgery, criminal intimidation, extortion, identity theft, and electronic evidence are sufficiently broad to cover many aspects of the offence. Nevertheless, the fragmented application of multiple statutes may create uncertainty during investigation and prosecution.

Another significant concern is the absence of a comprehensive legal framework governing the criminal misuse of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, voice cloning, and deepfake content. As digital arrest scams increasingly incorporate these technologies, future legislative reforms must specifically recognise AI-assisted cybercrime.

Further, India’s cyber investigation infrastructure remains uneven across States. While metropolitan cities have relatively advanced cybercrime units, many rural and semi-urban areas continue to face shortages of trained personnel, digital forensic laboratories, and technical expertise. Since cybercriminals frequently operate across jurisdictions, effective enforcement requires greater coordination among police authorities, banks, telecom service providers, and international agencies.

Therefore, although the existing legal framework is capable of prosecuting digital arrest scams, preventive regulation, institutional capacity building, and legislative clarification remain essential.

Comparative Perspective

Several jurisdictions have adopted proactive measures to combat cyber-enabled fraud and identity-based scams.

European Union: The European Union has introduced the AI Act, which establishes a risk-based regulatory framework for artificial intelligence. It imposes obligations on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems and promotes transparency in AI-generated content.

United Kingdom: The UK has strengthened its cyber fraud enforcement through the National Crime Agency and Action Fraud, encouraging rapid reporting and coordinated investigations.

Singapore: Singapore has implemented extensive public awareness campaigns and close coordination between financial institutions and law enforcement agencies, enabling the freezing of suspicious transactions at an early stage.

India may draw valuable lessons from these jurisdictions by introducing specialised legislation addressing AI-enabled fraud, strengthening digital forensic capabilities, and promoting inter-agency cooperation.

Recommendations

To strengthen India’s response to digital arrest scams, the following reforms should be considered:

Introduce a statutory definition of “digital arrest scam” under cybercrime legislation.

Enact comprehensive legislation regulating the criminal misuse of artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and voice cloning.

Establish specialised cybercrime courts for the speedy disposal of technology-related offences.

Expand digital forensic laboratories across all States and Union Territories.

Provide regular training to police officers, prosecutors, and judicial officers on emerging cyber threats.

Strengthen coordination among banks, telecom service providers, payment intermediaries, and law enforcement agencies for immediate freezing of fraudulent transactions.

Launch nationwide digital literacy programmes informing citizens that no investigating agency demands money through phone calls or video conferencing.

Enhance international cooperation for investigation, extradition, and recovery of assets derived from cybercrime.

Conclusion

Digital arrest scams represent one of the most sophisticated forms of cyber-enabled financial fraud currently affecting India. By exploiting fear, impersonation, and technological manipulation, fraudsters deceive victims into parting with substantial sums of money while falsely claiming to exercise governmental authority.

Although the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 collectively provide a strong legal foundation for prosecuting offenders, the increasing sophistication of cybercrime necessitates continuous legal reform. Legislative clarity, stronger cyber investigation mechanisms, improved digital forensic infrastructure, and enhanced public awareness will be crucial in ensuring that India’s criminal justice system remains capable of responding effectively to emerging technological threats.

As India continues its digital transformation, the law must evolve at an equal pace. Protecting citizens from technology-driven deception is no longer merely a matter of cybersecurity; it is an essential component of ensuring justice, preserving public trust, and upholding the rule of law in the digital age.