A Delhi court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer of more than Rs 52 lakh through an alleged online romance scam that originated on the dating application Tinder.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts held that the material available on record prima facie indicated a pattern commonly associated with online honeytrap and romance fraud cases. The Court observed that the financial transactions under scrutiny appeared to be consistent with allegations that the accused induced the judicial officer into transferring substantial sums of money under false pretences.
According to the prosecution, the judicial officer came into contact with the accused through Tinder in November 2025. The accused allegedly introduced himself as Abhimanyu Vashishth and claimed to be an officer serving in a secret government department. The two subsequently developed a relationship.
During the course of their interactions, the accused allegedly persuaded the judicial officer to invest money on assurances of substantial financial returns. Acting on those representations, the officer is said to have transferred more than Rs 52 lakh to bank accounts linked to the accused. The promised returns, however, never materialised, resulting in allegations of cheating, fraud and criminal deception.
The Court noted an unusual feature of the case. Although the alleged victim was the judicial officer, the First Information Report (FIR) was not registered on her complaint. Instead, the complaint was lodged in the name of her domestic help, who claimed to have been cheated through an online dating platform.
Following registration of the case, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After a trial court rejected his bail application, he approached the Sessions Court seeking regular bail.
While examining the bail plea, the Court found that almost all the disputed transactions had originated from the bank accounts of the judicial officer and not from those of the domestic worker. In view of this, the Court observed that the complaint on record did not appear to reflect the identity of the actual complainant.
The Court expressed concern that a judicial officer, who is entrusted with the administration of justice and expected to place complete facts before a court of law, had chosen not to approach the investigating authorities directly despite being the person allegedly affected by the transactions.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that becoming a victim of an online romance scam could cause personal embarrassment and reputational concerns. However, it held that such considerations could not justify suppression of material facts or withholding relevant evidence during a criminal investigation. The Court emphasised that personal discomfort could not be permitted to compromise the integrity, transparency and effectiveness of the investigative process.
The Court further noted significant deficiencies in the collection of electronic evidence. Despite the relationship allegedly originating on Tinder, neither the Tinder chat records nor the complete WhatsApp conversations between the parties had been placed before the investigating agency. The Court also recorded that call detail records had not been obtained.
Observing that the judicial officer was fully aware of the importance of candour in legal proceedings, the Court stated that she should place before the Investigating Officer, or if necessary before the Magistrate, a complete account of her communications with the accused, including WhatsApp messages, Tinder conversations and details regarding the circumstances under which the payments were made.
The Court was equally critical of the conduct of the accused. It noted that he had selectively produced WhatsApp messages allegedly sent by the judicial officer while withholding his own responses. The Court also recorded that the accused had refused to provide access to his mobile phone, thereby hampering the investigation.
Additionally, the Court found shortcomings in the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. It observed that the Investigating Officer had failed to secure crucial digital evidence and had not adequately examined several important aspects of the case. These included the source of a cash deposit of Rs 5 lakh and the role of various entities through which part of the disputed funds were allegedly transferred.
After examining the available chats, bank records and other material, the Court observed that the case appeared to bear the characteristics of a typical online romance scam. It held that the investigation remained at a preliminary stage and that substantial evidence was yet to be collected and analysed. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the accused was not entitled to bail at this stage and dismissed the application.
The Court also issued further directions to the Investigating Officer, seeking collection of complete Tinder and WhatsApp records of both parties, verification of their alleged meetings, investigation into the entities involved in the movement of funds, and expeditious forensic examination and analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.
The post Delhi court denies bail to man accused of cheating Haryana judicial officer in Tinder honeytrap appeared first on India Legal.