MUMBAI, Jan. 4 -- A special CBI court recently refused bail to a 33-year-old real estate agent arrested for allegedly facilitating a cyber fraud of over Rs.7.72 crore, after threatening a senior citizen with "digital arrest" in the "Naresh Goyal" case. The court said people who allow their bank accounts to be used for criminal activities "cannot escape from the criminal liability". The special court rejected the bail plea of Kamleshkumar Mali, observing that he had played an active role in "committing the fraud and duping innocents". According to the police, the complainant had received a call from someone on July 4, 2025, posing as an official from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The fraudster informed the elderly woman that accounts had been opened with the Canara Bank using her identity documents, and that the accounts were used in the money laundering case involving Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal. The caller said the case was being investigated by the Colaba police station. The complainant then received a WhatsApp call from one Ajay Basariya, pretending to be a senior police inspector. He threatened to freeze her bank accounts and arrest her if she did not cooperate in the "investigation". Subsequently, Basariya informed her that she was under "digital arrest". Over a period of time, the fraudster coerced her to sell shares and transfer over Rs.7.72 crore to various bank accounts provided by him. After draining her life savings, the fraudsters ended communication with her. That's when the woman realised she had been cheated and lodged a complaint with the cyber police. The investigating officers found that Rs.65 lakh of the proceeds of crime had been credited to a bank account in the name of Captown Realties Pvt Ltd, a company owned by Kamleshkumar Mali. The prosecution further informed the court that Rs.2.72 crore was deposited in Mali's bank account between July 1 and August 27, 2025, and the sum was later withdrawn. On the other hand, advocate Tauqeer Siddiqee, appearing for Mali, submitted that his client had been falsely implicated and deserved to be released on bail. He claimed that Mali worked as a real estate agent and, in good faith, had allowed his friend and absconding accused, Kunal Athiya, to use his bank account. The advocate claimed that Athiya had misused the account without Mali's knowledge, and that he was prepared to return the money credited to his bank accounts. Public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya opposed the bail plea, contending that no satisfactory reason has been given by Mali for the amounts credited in his bank account and further investigation was necessary. Siroya informed the court that a huge sum involved in the crime was not yet recovered and that there were other accused who were absconding....