Tinder Honey Trap: Delhi Court Denies Bail To Accused In ₹52 Lakh Cyber Fraud Case

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, of Karkardooma Court while dismissing the bail plea of accused Deepak Vats, made a series of sharp observations regarding the conduct of the accused, the complainant, and the investigation carried out by the Delhi Police Special Cell.

The Court noted that although the FIR was registered in the name of Diksha Devi, a domestic worker, the financial trail revealed that the actual victim appeared to be a serving judicial officer from Haryana.

“A matter that ought to be relatively straightforward, a cyber fraud case with a clear digital money trail, has been complicated, obfuscated and rendered murky by the conduct of all three protagonists: the accused, the victim and the investigating officer,” the Court observed.

According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on the complaint of Diksha Devi, who alleged that she had been cheated through an online dating application and lost ₹52,81,999.

However, after examining the record, the Court found that almost every transaction forming the basis of the alleged fraud originated from bank accounts belonging to a Haryana judicial officer, not from the complainant's account.

“The overwhelming majority of the transactions, all except the final cash deposit of Rs 5 lakh, were made not from the accounts of the complainant Diksha Devi, but directly from the accounts of a Haryana Judicial Officer, who is the actual and real victim in the present matter,” the Court noted.

The order further stated: “Diksha Devi did not initiate or make a single digital payment throughout the entire period.” Consequently, the Court remarked that “the complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant.”

Expressing concern over the manner in which the complaint was presented, the Court observed that the judicial officer had chosen to approach the legal process indirectly. “A judicial officer, a person who is herself entrusted with the solemn duty of dispensing justice, of upholding truth before the law, and of expecting others who appear before her to present the complete facts, has chosen to approach this Court obliquely, through her maid’s name, rather than coming forward herself," it said.

While acknowledging the embarrassment that may accompany becoming a victim of an online romance scam, the Court stressed that such considerations cannot override the requirements of a criminal investigation.

The Court said, “The officer’s personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation.”

The Court further observed: “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.”

According to the accused, he came into contact with the judicial officer through Tinder in November 2025. He claimed she used a profile under the name “Altruistic Joy” and that the two developed a consensual romantic relationship.

The accused argued that the monetary transfers were voluntary and that the judicial officer herself proposed investing money in online gaming and betting platforms.

However, after reviewing the material on record, including WhatsApp chats and bank transactions, the Court found that the pattern of interactions appeared consistent with a classic online romance scam.

“The modus operandi is distressingly familiar: initial contact through a dating application, rapid and intensive emotional escalation, the development of deep personal intimacy, and then the progressive extraction of money, often presented as investments, gifts or shared ventures.”

“The present matter bears all the hallmarks of this pattern,” the Court added. The Court was equally critical of the accused's conduct during the investigation. It noted that the WhatsApp chats produced by him were selective and one-sided, showing only messages sent by the alleged victim while omitting his own responses. “The accused is playing hide and seek,” the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that the accused had refused to provide the password to his mobile phone, thereby obstructing forensic examination and investigation. The order highlighted what it described as a “fundamental and glaring lacuna” in the investigation. The Court observed that crucial electronic evidence, including Tinder records, complete WhatsApp conversations, call detail records and information relating to intermediary entities through which money was allegedly routed, had not been collected.

“The IO appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the complainant’s account is accurate, without subjecting it to independent verification through the available electronic evidence,” the Court said. It also questioned the explanation regarding a Rs. 5 lakh cash deposit allegedly made by the domestic worker, describing the claim as “inherently implausible”.

Bail Rejected

Considering the gravity of allegations, the amount involved, the incomplete investigation and the accused’s conduct, the Court held that the case was not fit for grant of bail.

“Having considered the entire material on record, the arguments advanced by Ld Counsel on both sides, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the stage of investigation, the conduct of the accused in actively withholding material evidence, the status of the victim, and all the foregoing considerations, this Court is of the firm view that the present is not a fit case for the grant of bail at this stage.”

The bail application was accordingly dismissed, while directions were issued to the investigating agency to obtain complete Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify alleged meetings between the parties, examine the financial trail and expedite forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.

Case Title: State v. Deepak Vats