A Haryana judge allegedly transferred more than Rs 52 lakh to a man she met on Tinder, who promised high returns on investments. A Delhi court denied his bail and questioned why the complaint was filed in the name of the judge’s domestic worker while key digital evidence remains missing.
A Haryana judge was allegedly duped of more than Rs 52 lakh in a suspected honeytrap scam after matching on Tinder with a man who claimed to be working in a secret government department.
The alleged fraud, however, took an unusual turn when the complaint was not filed by the judge herself, but in the name of her domestic worker, who told police she had been cheated through the online dating app.
While the Delhi court denied bail to the accused, it also raised concerns over the manner in which the complaint was filed.
As per the complaint, the judge connected with the accused on Tinder in November. The man introduced himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth.”
Over time, the two started a relationship, during which the judge transferred more than Rs 52 lakh to bank accounts linked to the accused after he persuaded her to invest funds with promises of lucrative returns.
When the promised profits never materialised, allegations of cheating and fraud surfaced.
However, the FIR was not filed by the judicial officer herself. Instead, the complaint was lodged in the name of her domestic help, who claimed she had been deceived through an online dating platform.
The accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. After a lower court declined bail, he approached a sessions court seeking relief.
While considering the plea, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler noted that nearly all disputed transactions originated from the judge’s bank accounts rather than those of the domestic worker.
The court observed that the complaint did not appear to identify the actual victim and remarked that a judge had chosen to approach the criminal justice system indirectly rather than in her own name.
The judge acknowledged that victims of romance scams may experience embarrassment, but stressed that such concerns cannot override the need for a transparent and complete investigation.
The order also highlighted significant gaps in the probe.
Investigators neither obtained the Tinder chats through which the two allegedly connected nor secured the complete WhatsApp exchanges between the judge and the accused. Call detail records, as well, had not been collected.
The court also criticised the accused for allegedly withholding information. It noted that he had selectively produced messages sent by the officer while omitting his own responses and had not provided access to his phone.
Calling the conduct “hide and seek”, the court said the accused’s actions had further complicated the investigation.
