A Delhi court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of allegedly cheating a Haryana judicial officer of more than ₹52 lakh through an online romance scam that reportedly began on the dating application Tinder.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler observed that the material placed on record prima facie indicated a pattern commonly associated with online romance scams and honey-trap operations. The Court remarked that the financial transactions under scrutiny were “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap.”

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 working in a secret government department. The two subsequently developed a relationship, during which the judicial officer allegedly transferred over ₹52 lakh to accounts linked to the accused.

The prosecution alleged that the accused induced the officer to make the transfers on the promise of lucrative investment returns. However, the promised returns never materialised, leading to allegations of cheating and fraud.

A notable aspect of the case is that the FIR was not lodged by the judicial officer herself. Instead, the complaint was filed in the name of her domestic worker, who claimed that she had been cheated through an online dating application.

While considering the bail application, the Court noted that nearly all the disputed transactions originated from the judicial officer’s bank accounts rather than the domestic worker’s account. The Court observed that the complaint did not appear to reflect the identity of the true complainant.

In a significant observation, the Court stated that a judicial officer, entrusted with the responsibility of administering justice and ensuring complete disclosure of facts before the law, had chosen to approach the authorities indirectly through her domestic worker instead of coming forward herself.

The Court acknowledged that becoming a victim of an online romance scam may cause personal embarrassment. However, it emphasized that such discomfort cannot justify withholding crucial facts or evidence from investigators, particularly in a criminal investigation.

The judge also expressed concern over missing electronic evidence. Despite the relationship allegedly originating on Tinder, neither the Tinder chat history nor the complete WhatsApp conversations between the parties had been placed on record. Additionally, call detail records had not been collected during the investigation.

The Court observed that the judicial officer was in a better position than most citizens to understand the importance of placing the complete truth before investigating authorities. It urged her to provide her entire Tinder and WhatsApp communication history and explain the circumstances that led to the transfers.

At the same time, the Court was critical of the accused's conduct. It noted that he had selectively produced only certain WhatsApp messages while withholding his own responses and had also refused to provide access to his mobile phone. The Court remarked that the accused appeared to be “playing hide and seek.”

The investigating officer also came under scrutiny for failing to secure key electronic evidence and for not thoroughly investigating several aspects of the case, including the source of a ₹5 lakh cash deposit and the entities through which some of the funds were allegedly routed.

Given that the investigation remains at a preliminary stage and several crucial pieces of evidence are yet to be collected, the Court declined to grant bail to the accused. It further directed the investigating officer to obtain complete Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify alleged meetings between the parties, investigate the entities involved in the movement of funds, and expedite the forensic examination of the accused’s mobile phone.