In early 2025, Gujarat’s Cybercrime unit uncovered a sophisticated network that hacked into CCTV camera systems across India. The investigation began with leaked videos from a Rajkot maternity hospital and expanded to reveal breaches at hospitals, schools and private homes nationwide. Police registered an FIR on February 17, 2025, invoking the Information Technology Act (IT Act) including Sections 66(e) and 67 for privacy and obscenity violations. The state Home Department even applied Section 66F(2) (cyberterrorism) of the IT Act, carrying life imprisonment, given the scale of the intrusion. Over the following days, Gujarat Cyber Crime Branch teams arrested seven suspects linked to the scheme.
In early 2025, Gujarat’s Cybercrime unit uncovered a sophisticated network that hacked into CCTV camera systems across India. The investigation began with leaked videos from a Rajkot maternity hospital and expanded to reveal breaches at hospitals, schools and private homes nationwide. Police registered an FIR on February 17, 2025, invoking the Information Technology Act (IT Act) including Sections 66(e) and 67 for privacy and obscenity violations. The state Home Department even applied Section 66F(2) (cyberterrorism) of the IT Act, carrying life imprisonment, given the scale of the intrusion. Over the following days, Gujarat Cyber Crime Branch teams arrested seven suspects linked to the scheme.
Legal Proceedings
The case is now in the courts. In August 2025, the Gujarat High Court recorded the charges against one accused, Parit Ghanshyambhai Dhameliya, in Regular Bail Application No.14339/2025. The order notes that the accused had hacked the hospital CCTV and captured female patients undressing for medical exams – “a highly immoral act”. Dhameliya applied for bail, claiming he only taught others how to hack cameras and had no role in selling any footage. The state opposed bail, presenting IP logs linking his address to the hospital’s CCTV and evidence of payments received. The prosecution emphasized that the conspiracy invaded victims’ privacy on a massive scale and merited the cyber-terrorism charge. Ultimately, the High Court refused bail, observing that the offenses were “against the decency and morality” and had clearly infringed the fundamental right to privacy.
Case Synopsis:
Police registered FIR No.11191067250034/2025 at Ahmedabad Cyber Crime PS under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita section 61, 77, 241 and IT Act section 43B, 66, 66F(2), 66E, 67. The FIR followed reports that videos from Rajkot’s Payal Hospital had leaked online.
Investigation:
Cyber cells joined a monitoring Telegram channel as customers and traced the racket to Maharashtra and UP. Separate teams arrested three suspects in Sangli, Latur and Prayagraj within 48 hours. Leads soon implicated additional accused. Investigators found many CCTV systems still used default passwords (“admin123”), allowing automated hacks.
A chargesheet was filed and Dhameliya, arrested on 22 Feb 2025, applied for regular bail. He argued he had no financial or conspiratorial role – only technical knowledge sharing, and that he did not distribute or profit from the videos. The State countered that logs tied him to the Rajkot CCTV and showed he received payments from co-accused. Section 66F (cyber terrorism) was specifically invoked due to the “highly immoral” nature of the crime.
High Court Order:
In its August 8, 2025 order, the Gujarat HC summarized the case facts and considered legal issues. It noted the graphic privacy violations (women’s undressing captured and sold) and that the accused had commercialized these breaches. The court held that given these facts – which struck at personal dignity and privacy – there was no ground to grant bail. The application was dismissed accordingly.
Facts and Issues:
The principal facts are that private CCTV camera systems (notably at a Rajkot maternity home) were illegally accessed and their video streams sold online. Key legal issues include invasion of privacy, distribution of obscene material, and whether hacking nationwide CCTV networks qualifies as “cyber terrorism” under IT Act Section 66F. The state prosecution charged the accused under sections of the IT Act (43, 66, 66E, 67, and 66F(2)) and also Sections 61, 77, 241 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS Act) for related offenses. Defense arguments (in bail petitions) claimed the applicants merely provided technical know-how and had no intent to terrorize or gain financially; they argued Section 66F was inapplicable to this case.
Court’s View:
In bail hearings (Gujarat High Court, 8 Aug 2025), the court recounted that the hacked CCTV footage showed women patients in vulnerable states. The judge observed that obtaining and selling videos of female patients undressing during medical exams was a “highly immoral act”. He noted that the accused profited from those recordings and that the conduct “jeopardized the fundamental right to privacy” of the victims. The court agreed with the prosecution that the acts were “against decency and morality,” and concluded that the offenses under IT Act Section 66F(2) could be made out on the facts. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed. The court’s decision emphasized deterrence and societal interest over the accused’s personal circumstances.
நீதிமன்றக் கருத்து (தமிழ் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு):
நீதிமன்றம் குறிப்பிட்டது: “குற்றவாளிகள் மருத்துவ பரிசோதனைக்காக பெண்கள் உடலை அகற்றும்போது அவர்களின் தொலைக்காட்சி காட்சிகளைப் பதிவு செய்தல் மிகவும் அநீதியான செயல் ஆகும். மேலும் குற்றவாளிகள் அந்த காட்சிகளால் பணம் ஈட்டிக் கொண்டு அவற்றை பல சமூக ஊடக தளங்களில் பரவலாகப் பகிர்ந்துள்ளனர். இதனால் குற்றவாளிகளால் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்ட பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்களின் தனியுரிமை அடிப்படை உரிமை கேள்விக்குறியாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.
Conclusion:
The Gujarat CCTV hacking case stands as a grim reminder of how technological vulnerabilities—when exploited—can lead to egregious violations of personal privacy and dignity. The court’s stern stance in denying bail reflects the seriousness of such cyber offenses and the judiciary’s role in deterring similar acts. As surveillance technology becomes more integrated into our lives, the need to safeguard these systems is no longer optional—it is critical. Legal accountability, as demonstrated in this case, must go hand-in-hand with public awareness and institutional responsibility to create a cyber-secure environment. This case reinforces that the law, when effectively enforced, can uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and send a strong message against digital exploitation.
Judgment Reference: Parit Ghanshyambhai Dhameliya vs. State of Gujarat, R/CR.MA/14339/2025 (Guj. HC, 08 Aug 2025).
