A Delhi court recently denied bail to an accused in a honey-trapping and cyber fraud case involving Haryana Additional District and Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, of Karkardooma Court, dismissed the bail plea of Deepak Vats, who is accused of duping the judicial officer of ₹52 lakh. OpIndia accessed judgment in the case.
The ASJ noted that the facts of the case bore a pattern of a honey trap, while making sharp observations regarding the conduct of the accused, the complainant, and the investigation carried out by the Delhi Police Special Cell. “…the pattern of financial transactions correlating so precisely and immediately with the WhatsApp communications is consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap,” ASJ Laler observed in the order dated June 9, 2026, expressing “profound anguish at the state of the record in the present proceedings”.
“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,” the ASJ added.
The Court expressed disappointment over the fact that the judicial official got the complaint filed in the name of her domestic help, instead of coming forward and presenting complete facts before the court. “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,” the ASJ said.
The court acknowledged that the victim, being a judicial officer, might have felt profound embarrassment on finding out that she had been honey-trapped. However, the court said that by filing the complaint in an incomplete and misleading manner complicated the proceedings.
“The vulnerability of a person in that situation invites understanding, not condemnation. However, the officer’s personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation. A complaint filed in an incomplete or misleading manner, designed to protect the victim’s identity at the cost of obscuring the facts, creates exactly the kind of evidentiary confusion that is now before this court,” the court said.
The court expressed displeasure over the partially concealed information, including WhatsApp communication and chats, submitted by both the judicial officer and the accused before the court. The court also questioned the conduct of the investigating officer (IO), sub-inspector Ajit Dadarwal of Delhi Police, and stated that an officer investigating a cyber fraud of over ₹52 lakh involving a judicial officer was expected to display the highest standards of diligence, impartiality and thoroughness.
The court said that IO Dadarwal failed to obtain the Tinder chat history of either party, the complete WhatsApp chat history from the accused’s device, and ignored a court direction to verify an alleged meeting between the victim and the accused at Drishtti Dreamscapes, Saket. The court asked the judicial officer to provide complete details of the case. “The victim, being a judicial officer, is better placed than most to understand that the path to justice requires candour,” the court said.
How the case came up before the court
The judge, who is the victim in this case, and the accused had met through a dating app called Tinder. Judicial officer, a member of the Haryana superior judicial service, is presently posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, fast track special court for trying offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at Narnaul.
The two developed a relationship, and the judge transferred a total amount of around ₹52 lakh into the bank accounts of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused made the victim transfer the amount to him by promising high returns. However, the promise was never fulfilled, leading to the filing of a complaint. Notably, the judicial officer did not file the complaint herself but instead got a complaint registered in the name of her house help, Diksha Devi.
An e-FIR was registered under sections 308 (extortion), 318(4) cheating, 319 (cheating by personation) and 340 (using a forged document or electronic record as genuine) of the BNS against Deepak Vats on the complaint of the judicial officer’s maid Diksha Devi.
The ASJ highlighted how even educated individuals, including government officials, have been falling victim to cases of cyber fraud. “This Court has, during the course of proceedings in numerous cyber fraud matters over the year, encountered a regrettable pattern in which individuals, including senior civil servants, professionals, and business persons of standing, have been ensnared in digital arrest, investment fraud or romantic honey traps,” the judge said.
