In a recent legal development, a Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of defrauding a Haryana judicial officer of over ₹52 lakh through a purported honey trap scheme initiated via the mobile dating app Tinder. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler highlighted that the evidence suggests a common pattern seen in online romance scams, noting that the financial transactions align with the characteristics of a honey trap.
The case dates back to November 2025 when the victim, a judicial officer, allegedly connected with the accused on Tinder. The accused, who presented himself as ‘Abhimanyu Vashishth’ and claimed to be an officer in a clandestine government department, purportedly cultivated a relationship with the judge. Throughout this relationship, the judge reportedly transferred substantial funds to accounts associated with the accused, under the guise of investments promised to yield high returns. However, these returns never materialized, leading to accusations of fraud and deception.
Interestingly, the First Information Report (FIR) was not filed by the judge herself but rather through her domestic worker, who claimed to have been defrauded via the dating app. Following the arrest of the accused, he was remanded to judicial custody. Despite his bail application being denied by the trial court, the accused sought relief from the sessions court.
During the bail hearing, the court observed that the financial transactions in question predominantly originated from the judicial officer’s bank accounts, casting doubt on the true complainant’s identity. “The complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant,” the court commented. It further criticized the judicial officer for opting to file the complaint obliquely through her maid, rather than directly.
The court recognized the personal embarrassment associated with falling prey to a romance scam but emphasized that such discomfort should not impede the transparency of the criminal investigation. “The officer’s personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation,” it remarked.
More Read
Additionally, the court identified missing electronic evidence, such as Tinder chats and complete WhatsApp communications, crucial to the investigation. The court urged the judicial officer to disclose all pertinent information, including her WhatsApp and Tinder interactions with the accused, to aid the investigation.
The accused was also criticized for selectively presenting evidence, withholding his own WhatsApp messages, and resisting access to his mobile phone. “The accused is playing hide and seek,” the court noted, also reprimanding the investigating officer for not securing essential electronic evidence and for lapses in probing various financial transactions.
The court underscored that the case appears to follow a familiar pattern observed in online romance scams, further asserting that the investigation is at an early stage with vital evidence still pending collection. Consequently, the court denied bail to the accused and instructed the investigating officer to acquire comprehensive Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify meetings, scrutinize the financial flow, and expedite the analysis of the accused’s mobile device.
More Read
The accused was represented by Advocates Rahul Kumar and Pooja Chauhan, while Additional Public Prosecutor Santosh Kumar appeared for the State.
