A Delhi Karkardooma Court rejected the bail plea of Deepak Vats, accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer of over Rs 52 lakh in a case allegedly originating on Tinder. The Court observed that the allegations were consistent with a suspected honey-trap scheme and made strong remarks on the investigation.
A Delhi Karkardooma Court rejected a bail request from a man accused of allegedly cheating a judicial officer from Haryana of over Rs 52 lakh, in what the court said followed a scheme “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap.” The prosecution case claimed the episode began on the dating app Tinder.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler at Karkardooma Courts dismissed the bail plea of accused Deepak Vats and made strict observations about the accused’s behaviour, the complainant’s role, and how Delhi Police Special Cell conducted the investigation.
The court noted that while the FIR was filed in the name of Diksha Devi, a domestic worker, the financial records indicated that the actual complainant/victim was a serving judicial officer in Haryana.
The court observed,
“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,”
As per the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on the complaint of Diksha Devi, who claimed she had been cheated through an online dating application and lost Rs 52,81,999. However, after reviewing the material, the court concluded that the transactions relied upon to show the alleged fraud were mostly traced to bank accounts held by the Haryana judicial officer rather than to the complainant’s account.
The court noted,
“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 order further stated:
“Diksha Devi did not initiate or make a single digital payment throughout the entire period.”
It therefore remarked that “the complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant.”
The court also expressed concern about the way the complaint was routed through the domestic worker instead of being presented directly by the judicial officer.
It said,
“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,”
ALSO READ: Judge in Honey Trap | Accused Woman Demands Rs. 50 Lakh Flat
While acknowledging that such scams may cause embarrassment if the complainant is a victim, the court said those personal considerations cannot interfere with criminal investigation requirements.
The court stated:
“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 met the judicial officer on Tinder in November 2025. He claimed she operated under the name “Altruistic Joy” and that the two developed a consensual romantic connection. He argued that the money transfers were voluntary and that the judicial officer herself suggested investing money in online gaming and betting platforms. The court, however, found the overall pattern to match an online romance scam after examining WhatsApp chats and banking transactions.
The court added,
“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,”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused| ‘Honey Trap’ Case
The court was also critical of the accused’s approach during the investigation. It noted that the WhatsApp chats he produced were selectively presented showing only messages allegedly sent by the victim while excluding his own replies. “The accused is playing hide and seek,” the court remarked. The court also observed that the accused refused to share the password for his mobile phone, which the court viewed as obstructing forensic examination and investigation.
The order highlighted what it called a “fundamental and glaring lacuna” in the investigation. The court noted that key electronic evidence including Tinder records, complete WhatsApp conversations, call detail records, and details of intermediary entities through which money was supposedly channelled was not 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 further questioned the explanation given for a Rs. 5 lakh cash deposit allegedly made by the domestic worker, terming the claim “inherently implausible”.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the large sum involved, the incomplete nature of the investigation, and the conduct of the accused, the court held the matter was not suitable for bail.
It ordered,
“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.”
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. The court directed the investigating agency to collect the complete Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify the alleged meetings between the parties, examine the full financial trail, and expedite forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.
Case Title: State v. Deepak Vats
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE