A Delhi court denied bail to a person accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer for an amount of more than Rs 52 lakh through an alleged honeytrap using the dating application Tinder.
The material on record prima facie showcased a pattern which is commonly seen in the online dating apps, and the financial transactions in the case were “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap” observed Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, said a report in Barandbench.
According to the case records, the trap began in November 2025, the time when the judicial officer came in contact with the accused, who introduced himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth” and claimed to be an officer in a secret government department.
The two, subsequently, were in a relationship where the judge allegedly transferred more than Rs 52 lakh to the account of the accused. The judge said that the transactions were made after the accused promised the high returns of the money and asked her to invest, but it never materialised.
However, the complaint was not filed by the judge. Instead, an FIR was lodged in the name of her domestic worker, who had been cheated through an online dating application.
Later, the accused was arrested and remanded under custody.
The accused approached the sessions court once the trial court denied him bail.
The court noted that "the complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant”, as most of the transactions were made from the judge’s bank account and not from the domestic worker’s account, the report said.
The court also said that the judicial officer must come with complete facts rather than approaching the court indirectly through another person.
The court noted that the electronic device has not been collected yet. Neither the Tinder chats nor the WhatsApp conversations and the call records had been obtained.
“The victim, being a judicial officer, is better placed than most to understand that the path to justice requires candour. She should, at the earliest opportunity, come before the IO - or, if she so chooses, before the Ld. Magistrate and place on record the complete and unvarnished truth: her full WhatsApp communication history with the accused, her Tinder chat history, her own understanding of why she made the payments she made, and who directed, suggested, or induced those payments," said the judge.
The court also mentioned that the accused has only produced the messages sent by the judicial officer and has refused to provide access to his mobile phone.
The court remarked that the accused is playing hide and seek.
The court criticised the investigating officer for failing to collect key electronic evidence and not for investigating throughout.
As the investigation is still at the early stage and important evidence has not been collected yet, the court refused bail to the accused and asked the investigating officer to obtain all the necessary records.
Advocates Rahul Kumar and Pooja Chauhan represented the accused.
The state was represented by additional public prosecutor Santosh Kumar.
This story was written by a student intern working with TNM.