Delhi Court Denies Bail in ₹52 Lakh Tinder Romance Scam Involving Haryana Judicial Officer

June 11, 2026 : A Delhi court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of orchestrating an alleged online romance scam that resulted in a Haryana judicial officer transferring more than ₹52 lakh to him. The court observed that the case bears the hallmarks of a classic online honeytrap and romance fraud, with the available evidence indicating that the accused may have induced the officer into making substantial financial transfers on false promises.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts noted that the accused allegedly met the judicial officer on the dating application Tinder in November 2025. According to the prosecution, he introduced himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth” and claimed to be serving in a secret government department. The relationship reportedly progressed over time, during which the accused allegedly convinced the officer to invest money by assuring her of lucrative returns.

Acting on these representations, the officer is said to have transferred over ₹52 lakh into bank accounts linked to the accused. However, the promised returns never materialized, leading to allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal deception.

During the hearing, the court highlighted an unusual aspect of the case. Although the judicial officer was the person who allegedly suffered the financial loss, the FIR was not lodged by her. Instead, the complaint was filed in the name of her domestic help, who claimed to have been cheated through an online dating platform. The court observed that nearly all the disputed transactions originated from the judicial officer’s bank accounts, raising questions about why the actual victim was not reflected as the complainant in the case.

The court expressed concern that a judicial officer, who is expected to uphold the highest standards of candour and transparency in legal proceedings, had not directly approached investigating authorities despite being the person allegedly affected by the transactions. At the same time, the judge acknowledged that victims of online romance scams may face embarrassment and reputational concerns. Nevertheless, the court held that such considerations cannot justify withholding material facts or evidence during a criminal investigation.

Significantly, the court found serious gaps in the collection of electronic evidence. Despite the alleged relationship beginning on Tinder, investigators had not obtained the Tinder chat records. Complete WhatsApp conversations between the parties were also missing from the case record, and call detail records had not been secured.

The court directed that the judicial officer should provide investigators with a comprehensive account of her communications with the accused, including Tinder conversations, WhatsApp messages, and details surrounding the financial transactions. The judge noted that such information would be essential for establishing the true nature of the relationship and the circumstances in which the money was transferred.

The court was equally critical of the accused’s conduct. It observed that he had selectively produced WhatsApp messages allegedly sent by the judicial officer while withholding his own responses. The accused had also refused to provide access to his mobile phone, which the court said had impeded the investigation.

Further criticism was directed at the investigating agency. The court noted that investigators had failed to secure crucial digital evidence and had not adequately examined several important aspects of the case, including the source of a ₹5 lakh cash deposit and the role of various entities through which portions of the disputed funds were allegedly routed.

After reviewing the available bank records, chat exchanges, and other material on record, the court concluded that the matter appeared to fit the pattern of a typical online romance scam. Given that the investigation remains at a preliminary stage and substantial evidence is yet to be collected and analysed, the court held that no grounds existed for granting bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with the court directing investigators to obtain complete Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify the parties’ alleged meetings, investigate the entities involved in the movement of funds, and expedite the forensic examination of the accused’s mobile phone.