The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) came down heavily on cyber fraudsters, describing them as “parasites” who prey on unsuspecting citizens, and observed that such offenders ought to be dealt with firmly. Refusing to entertain a plea by an accused seeking the clubbing of multiple criminal cases and the grant of bail, the court remarked that the interests of society are better protected when those involved in such offences remain in custody.

“You people are parasites....You people, take money from investors and dupe them. We have to be very harsh on you. Society’s interest is there only when you are inside jail and not outside”, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed.

The top court was hearing a petition filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is facing multiple cyberfraud cases across Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir. Cases alleging cheating were registered against him by the Jammu Police and the Tirupur Police in Tamil Nadu earlier this year.

In his plea, Mr. Singh apprised the court that several criminal cases were pending against him in different States and expressed apprehension that additional cases could be registered in the future. He accordingly sought interim protection from the court.

The Bench, also comprising Justice V. Mohana, took note of the pattern allegedly followed by cyberfraud accused, observing that they often commit offences in one State and then move elsewhere to avoid detection and arrest.

“You are hardened criminals whose victims are spread pan-India. You cheat someone in Tamil Nadu and then go to Jammu”, the Chief Justice said.

Accordingly, the Bench declined to grant any interim relief and observed that Mr. Singh was at liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court for appropriate relief.

In October last year, a Bench headed by Chief Justice Kant had taken suo motu cognisance of the growing menace of “digital arrest” scams, an organised cyberfraud in which criminals impersonate law enforcement or judicial officers to extort money using forged court orders. The court’s intervention followed a letter from a septuagenarian woman in Ambala, Haryana, recounting how she and her husband were duped of nearly ₹1.5 crore by conmen impersonating officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and judicial authorities. 

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice had observed that the judiciary would pass stringent orders to strengthen the hands of investigating agencies in tackling such offences. Following the court’s intervention, several States began referring major digital arrest fraud cases to the CBI. The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court.