Supreme Court refuses to club over 30 cyber fraud cases against two accused, terming cyber crime 'digital dacoity'

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 28 October 2026

Case: Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari v. State
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana
Source: Verdictum

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari v. State, the Supreme Court, comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, refused to consolidate over 30 cyber fraud cases across 12 states against two accused. The Court termed cyber crime 'digital dacoity' and emphasized that accused convenience cannot override victims' rights or disrupt investigations.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The right of an accused to seek transfer or consolidation of cases for their convenience cannot override the rights of victims and investigating agencies, especially in cases of organised cyber crime. Consolidating multiple criminal complaints arising from widespread cyber fraud would dilute investigations and inconvenience victims.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing accused in multi-state cyber fraud cases should anticipate strong judicial resistance to consolidation pleas, particularly when victims are dispersed. Litigants involved in cyber fraud as victims can expect courts to prioritize their convenience and the integrity of investigations over the accused's request for case transfers.

Key Legal Takeaways

1The Supreme Court views cyber crime, especially 'digital arrests' and mule accounts, as 'digital dacoity' requiring stringent action.
2Consolidation of criminal complaints across multiple states for accused convenience will likely be denied if it prejudices victims or investigations.
3The Court prioritizes the rights of victims and the efficiency of investigating agencies over the convenience of accused persons in cyber fraud cases.

The Legal Issue Two individuals, Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari, faced over 30 criminal complaints across 12 states. These complaints alleged that their company's account was used as a 'mule account' for various cyber fraud offences, including 'digital arrests' that defrauded senior citizens. The accused sought to consolidate these numerous cases, presumably for their convenience in defending the charges.

Court's Reasoning The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, strongly condemned the nature of the alleged offences, terming cyber crime as 'digital dacoity'. The bench highlighted the severe impact on victims, citing an instance where an 81-year-old from Ernakulam was defrauded of Rs 1.90 crore, with the money deposited into the accused's mule account. The Court unequivocally stated that there was 'no question of giving any judicial forum to such persons' and that those involved in organised cyber crime rackets must face stringent action. Justice Bagchi specifically questioned why victims should be compelled to travel to Delhi for the accused's convenience. The Court held that the accused's right to seek transfer of cases to a place of their convenience cannot override the rights of the victims and the investigating agencies, and that such consolidation would dilute the ongoing investigations.

What Follows The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea of Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari to consolidate the over 30 criminal complaints. This means the multiple investigations and proceedings in different states will continue independently. The accused will have to face the charges in each jurisdiction where complaints have been filed, without the benefit of a consolidated proceeding.