A Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of defrauding a Haryana judicial officer of more than Rs 52 lakh after meeting on the dating app Tinder. The court noted that the accused received funds, withheld key electronic evidence, and failed to cooperate with the investigation.
Court Observations on Accused's Conduct
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of Patiala House Court rejected the bail plea of Deepak Vats, stating that his actions amounted to "active obstruction of the investigation." The court highlighted that the accused had selectively produced only messages sent by the judge while withholding his replies, and the pattern of financial transactions correlated precisely with WhatsApp communications, suggesting a honey trap.
Unusual Complaint Filed by Domestic Worker
The FIR was not lodged by the judicial officer herself but by her domestic worker, Diksha Devi, who alleged cheating through an online dating app. The court found this striking, as Diksha Devi had not made any digital payments related to the fraud; almost all transactions were from the employer's bank accounts. The complaint did not appear to reflect the true complainant.
Defense Claims Consensual Relationship
The accused claimed that the judicial officer initiated contact via a fake profile and that a consensual relationship developed. He asserted that all financial transfers were voluntary, with the judge proposing deposits into an online gaming account in his name. He alleged the complaint was filed through the domestic worker after the relationship soured.
Criticism of Investigation
The court sharply criticized the investigating officer for lapses, including failing to access the accused's phone due to password refusal and not obtaining electronic evidence from the victim's side, such as Tinder chats, WhatsApp records, or call data. The court directed the IO to gather all records, verify physical meetings, investigate a Rs 5 lakh cash deposit, and examine money routing entities.
Court's Directives
The court emphasized that the IO must investigate impartially, regardless of the victim's status as a judicial officer. It also ordered the judicial officer to submit complete WhatsApp communications and Tinder data, cautioning that selective evidence serves neither justice nor the victim's objective. Considering the ongoing probe, risk of evidence tampering, and the accused's criminal antecedents, bail was denied.
