Digital Arrest In India: Simulated State Coercion, Cyber Fraud And The Regulatory Limits Of Criminal Law
Adv. Sonia Saini, Managing Partner, SS Global Law Firm, New Delhi
ABSTRACT
‘Digital arrest’ has emerged as one of the most disturbing forms of cyber- enabled financial fraud in India. Fraudsters impersonate police officers, officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate, customs officials, regulators and even judicial authorities; display fabricated warrants and official-looking communications; accuse victims of offences such as money laundering, narcotics trafficking or misuse of identity; and thereafter use prolonged video surveillance and threats of arrest to obtain money. Yet the expression ‘digital arrest’ describes no legally recognised procedure. The CBI has expressly reiterated that there is no legal concept of digital arrest in Indian law. This paper argues that the phenomenon should not be understood merely as online cheating. Its distinguishing feature is the deliberate simulation of State coercion: private actors appropriate the identity, procedures, symbols and coercive legitimacy of public institutions so that a victim submits to demands that would otherwise be rejected. Deception establishes credibility, but fear of arrest, prosecution, asset seizure or imprisonment produces compliance. The conduct consequently sits at the intersection of cheating, extortion, public- servant personation, forgery, criminal intimidation, cyber-personation and, in qualifying cases, organised crime. The paper examines the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Information Technology Act, 2000, Telecommunications Act, 2023 and India’s evolving cyber-fraud response. It further analyses the Supreme Court’s continuing suo motu proceedings in In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents, the January 2026 NCRP-CFCFRMS Standard Operating Procedure, CBI’s ABHAY notice-authentication system, mule- account controls and emerging victim-restoration mechanisms. The paper concludes that India does not suffer from a complete criminalisation gap. The more serious weakness is a fragmented prevention, authentication, financial- interdiction and restitution architecture. It proposes a five-pillar model based on verifiable governmental communications, real-time financial intervention, telecom traceability, intermediary cooperation and victim restoration. In the digital State, the identity and authority of the State itself must be treated as a cybersecurity asset.
Keywords: Digital Arrest; Cybercrime; Simulated State Coercion; Cyber Fraud; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; Artificial Intelligence; Mule Accounts; Cyber-Personation; Victim Restitution; State Impersonation.
