A Delhi sessions court has rejected the bail application of a man accused of defrauding a female judicial officer from Haryana of over Rs 52 lakh in an online romance scam that began on the Tinder dating application.
In dismissing the bail petition, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler observed that the available evidence points to a typical online relationship fraud, noting that the movement of funds aligned with a honey trap scenario. The court determined that the investigation is in its early stages and key electronic evidence remains to be gathered.
According to the prosecution, the victim matched with the accused on Tinder in November 2025. The accused allegedly introduced himself as Abhimanyu Vashishth and claimed to be an officer in a secret government department. As their relationship developed, he allegedly convinced the judicial officer to invest money by promising high returns. The officer subsequently transferred more than Rs 52 lakh across multiple bank accounts connected to the accused. However, the promised returns never materialized, leading to allegations of cheating and fraud. The accused was subsequently arrested and placed in judicial custody. After a trial court denied him bail, he approached the sessions court.
Discrepancy In Complainant Identity
A key detail emerged during the court proceedings regarding how the case was initiated. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered not under the judicial officer’s name, but in the name of her domestic worker, who claimed she was cheated through an online dating platform.
However, the sessions court’s scrutiny of the bank transactions revealed that the transferred funds originated almost entirely from the personal accounts of the judicial officer rather than those of her maid.
Expressing concern over this discrepancy, Judge Laler remarked that the formal complaint failed to represent the actual victim. He pointed out that a judicial officer, whose duty is to dispense justice and uphold legal truth, had chosen an indirect route by using her maid’s identity instead of coming forward directly.
The court added that while falling prey to an online romance scam can cause immense personal embarrassment, such concerns cannot justify concealing vital information or evidence from investigators. The sessions judge emphasized that individual discomfort must not undermine the integrity of a criminal probe.
Investigation Gaps And Accused Conduct
Several gaps in the ongoing investigation were highlighted during the hearing. The court noted the absence of critical electronic records, including call detail records, Tinder chat logs, and the judicial officer’s complete WhatsApp message history.
Judge Laler stated that as a judicial officer, the victim should understand the importance of transparency and urged her to immediately provide investigators or the magistrate with her full digital chat records and details regarding what prompted the financial transfers.
The conduct of the accused also drew sharp criticism. The court observed that the accused had only submitted selected WhatsApp messages sent by the judicial officer while holding back his own responses. Furthermore, he declined to grant investigators access to his mobile device, leading the judge to remark that the accused was playing hide-and-seek.
Additionally, the investigating officer (IO) faced reprimand for several lapses, such as failing to secure essential digital evidence. The court noted that the IO had not properly traced the origin of a Rs 5 lakh cash deposit or investigated the intermediate entities involved in routing the transferred funds.
Court Orders Strict Evidence Collection
Given the premature stage of the investigation and the volume of uncollected evidence, the court ruled against granting bail.
The IO was instructed to secure all Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify whether the two parties actually met, trace the financial entities used to transfer the money, and accelerate the forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.
In the proceedings, advocates Rahul Kumar and Pooja Chauhan appeared on behalf of the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Santosh Kumar represented the state.
