The Patiala House Court, Delhi has denied bail to a man accused of duping a serving judicial officer of over ₹52.81 lakh through an alleged Tinder honey trap, observing that the material on record prima facie reflects a pattern consistent with a romantic cyber fraud and that the accused has suppressed crucial electronic evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed the bail application of accused who is facing prosecution under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with an e-FIR registered by the IFSO Special Cell, Delhi. The prosecution alleges that the accused introduced himself under a false identity on Tinder, cultivated a romantic relationship and induced the victim to transfer substantial sums of money. Notably, the Court recorded that although the complaint was filed in the name of the judicial officer’s domestic help, the bank records establish that almost the entire amount was transferred from the judicial officer’s own accounts, making her the actual victim in the case.
Rejecting the defence that the payments were voluntary and made during a consensual relationship, the Court observed that the sequence of events initial contact through a dating application, rapid emotional intimacy and escalating financial transfers bore the hallmarks of a “honey trap” frequently encountered in cyber fraud cases.
The Court also found that the accused had selectively produced only the WhatsApp messages sent by the victim while withholding his own replies and had refused to disclose the password to his seized mobile phone, thereby obstructing the investigation. It held that such selective disclosure indicated an attempt to conceal material evidence.
At the same time, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation, noting that the Investigating Officer had failed to secure critical electronic evidence from the victim’s side, including Tinder chats, complete WhatsApp conversations and call records. It observed that the truth could emerge only through a comprehensive collection of digital evidence from both parties.
The Court further questioned the prosecution’s explanation regarding a ₹5 lakh cash deposit allegedly made by the judicial officer’s court peon on behalf of the complainant, describing the version as requiring independent verification.
Holding that the accused had received over ₹52 lakh in his accounts, withheld material evidence, refused to cooperate with forensic examination and that the investigation remained incomplete, the Court concluded that releasing him on bail could prejudice the probe. Accordingly, it dismissed the bail application and directed the investigating agency to obtain complete Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify the alleged meetings between the parties, investigate the source of the cash deposit and expedite forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.
