Malkajgiri Police: Bollaram couple loses Rs 61.85 lakh to fraud

An elderly couple in Bollaram transferred Rs 61.85 lakh to people posing as officials of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Mumbai Crime Branch, Malkajgiri Police said in its bulletin dated 22 October 2026. Police described the incident as a “digital arrest” fraud in which threats of legal action were used to make the couple send their savings to five bank accounts.

The bulletin, titled “Emerging Crimes DSR on 22.10.2026”, said a case had been registered at CCPS and an investigation was underway. It does not give the dates of the calls or transfers; 22 October is the date of the police account, not an established date for the fraud.

From a telecom allegation to demands for savings

According to Malkajgiri Police, the deception began with a phone call from an unknown person pretending to represent TRAI. The caller falsely alleged that the victim’s Aadhaar details had been used to obtain a mobile connection involved in fraudulent activities.

The call was then transferred to people posing as Mumbai Crime Branch officers, police said. They contacted the victim through WhatsApp video calls and falsely asserted that he was implicated in the Naresh Goyal money-laundering case. That supposed connection was part of the deception described by police, not a finding against the victim.

To support their story, the callers sent fabricated first information reports, arrest warrants, Interpol notices and documents presented as coming from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate, according to the bulletin. They also shared purported Supreme Court orders through WhatsApp.

A first information report is a police record of an alleged offence. In this account, police described the documents as fabricated material used to give the callers’ allegations an appearance of official authority.

Malkajgiri Police said the callers subjected the victim and his wife to prolonged psychological intimidation. They threatened to arrest the couple’s children if the matter was disclosed and demanded transfers for supposed financial verification and clearance by investigating authorities.

The callers promised that the money would be returned within five days after verification, the bulletin said. Instead, they stopped communicating and blocked the victims’ contact numbers. The couple then reported the incident through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and sought recovery of their money.

The term “digital arrest” describes the remote intimidation in this police account: callers used video communication, false accusations and purported official documents to control the victims’ actions. The bulletin attributes the demands to impersonators, not to TRAI or the Mumbai Crime Branch.

Money put on hold is not a confirmed refund

Malkajgiri Police said prompt reporting enabled Rs 3,55,379 to be put on hold. The bulletin does not state that this amount had been returned to the couple.

That distinction matters to the recovery position. The police account records a hold on funds after the complaint, while the victims’ request was for recovery of the amount transferred. It provides no date for a refund or completed restoration.

The bulletin also does not identify the accused, announce an arrest or specify the legal provisions invoked. Its account describes allegations under investigation rather than a court determination of responsibility.

Supreme Court directions on restoring fraud proceeds

The handling and return of cyber-fraud proceeds were addressed in a separate Supreme Court order dated 9 February 2026 in In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents. The proceedings were initiated by the court itself. The bench comprised the Chief Justice and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria.

Continuing earlier proceedings, the court recorded that the Attorney General had submitted a Ministry of Home Affairs status report and supporting documents. These included a standard operating procedure, or prescribed process, covering custody and restoration of money and grievance redressal through the cybercrime reporting framework.

The court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to formally adopt and implement the procedure approved on 2 January 2026 and issue it nationwide. The stated purposes included a uniform process among participating bodies, stronger coordination and timely restoration of defrauded funds wherever possible. It also directed High Courts to ensure compliance by adjudicating authorities within their jurisdictions.

Those directions concern the broader recovery framework. They do not establish a repayment outcome for the Bollaram couple.

Separately, the CBI said in a statement on Operation Chakra-VI that it had searched 89 locations across 20 states in three digital-arrest cases and arrested three accused persons. The agency said investigators examined bank accounts and online account-access data to trace proceeds. The statement does not identify the Bollaram complaint as one of those cases.

For the Bollaram investigation, Malkajgiri Police said the work underway included tracing beneficiary bank accounts, examining financial transactions and WhatsApp communication records, verifying the fabricated documents and identifying the people involved. The bulletin leaves both the identities of those responsible and the extent of eventual recovery unresolved.