The Delhi Court denied bail to an accused in a Rs. 52 lakh alleged Tinder honeytrap fraud, observing that a Haryana judicial officer, not the domestic worker named in the FIR appeared to be the real victim The Delhi Court has refused bail to a man accused of allegedly duping a Haryana judicial officer of more than Rs 52 lakh through what the Court described as a pattern “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap” that allegedly began on the dating application Tinder. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, of Karkardooma Court while dismissing the bail plea of accused Deepak Vats, made a series of sharp observations regarding the conduct of the accused, the complainant, and the investigation carried out by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The Court noted that although the FIR was registered in the name of Diksha Devi, a domestic worker, the financial trail revealed that the actual victim appeared to be a serving judicial officer from Haryana. “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,” the Court observed. According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on the complaint of Diksha Devi, who alleged that she had been cheated through an online dating application and lost Rs 52,81,999. However, after examining the record, the Court found that almost every transaction forming the basis of the alleged fraud originated from bank accounts belonging to a Haryana judicial officer, not from the complainant’s account “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 Court noted. The order further stated: “Diksha Devi did not initiate or make a single digital payment throughout the entire period.” Consequently, the Court remarked that “the complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant.” Expressing concern over the manner in which the complaint was presented, the Court observed that the judicial officer had chosen to approach the legal process indirectly. “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,” it said. While acknowledging the embarrassment that may accompany becoming a victim of an online romance scam, the Court stressed that such considerations cannot override the requirements of a criminal investigation.
385
