Delhi Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Duping Judge Of ₹52 Lakh Through Tinder, Slams Investigating Officer For Lapses In Probe

A Delhi Court has denied bail to a man accused of cheating a Haryana Judicial Officer of over Rs. 52 Lakh through a relationship allegedly initiated on the dating application Tinder, observing that he had received substantial funds, withheld material electronic evidence, and failed to cooperate with the investigation.Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts dismissed the bail plea of one Deepak Vats, observing that his conduct amounted to “active obstruction of the investigation.”“The victim is a serving Judicial Officer. The risk of the accused — if released — approaching or influencing a Judicial Officer or trying to pressurize her using intimate material, even indirectly, is a consideration that this Court cannot discount,” the Court said.The court also expressed its displeasure with the IO for not conducting the probe properly and said:"An IO investigating a cyber fraud of over Rs. 52 lakhs involving a Judicial Officer is expected to bring to the task the highest standards of professional diligence, impartiality, and thoroughness. The IO in the present matter has fallen significantly short of these standards...This Court wishes to observe that the IO's apparent reluctance to aggressively collect electronic evidence from the victim and complainant side may — and this Court only flags the possibility — reflect an institutional hesitation to press a Judicial Officer for evidence in a sensitive personal matter. If that is the case, it is misplaced. The IO's duty is to investigate the truth impartially, without fear or favour, regardless of the status of the parties. The status of the victim as a Judicial Officer should, if anything, be a reason for greater diligence, not lesser — because the integrity of the judicial system demands that the full truth emerge from a matter that involves one of its own officers".The FIR was lodged in the name of one Diksha Devi, a domestic worker, alleging that she was cheated through an online dating application. However, the Court noted that almost all transactions forming the basis of the alleged fraud originated not from Diksha Devi's accounts but from those of her employer, who is a serving judicial officer in Haryana. Calling this the “most striking aspect” of the case, the Court observed that the complaint “does not seem to reflect the true complainant,” as Diksha Devi had not initiated a single digital payment connected to the alleged fraud. It was the accused's case that it was the judge who initiated contact from a pseudo profile ans they developed a consensual romantic relationship thereafter. He claimed that all financial transfers were made voluntarily by the judge and that she herself proposed depositing funds into an online gaming or betting account maintained in his name for entertainment purposes. As per the accused, the parties met physically on two occasions in Delhi and the complaint was filed falsely through the maid when their relationship turned sour.Dismissing the bail plea, the Court noted that the accused selectively produced only the messages sent by the judge while carefully withholding all responses and communications sent by him. It observed that the pattern of financial transactions “correlating so precisely and immediately” with the WhatsApp communications was consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap. The Court said that the financial transactions must be read in the context of the nature and tenor of the communications between the parties, which left no doubt that the same were those of two persons who were in a relationship of deep emotional and physical intimacy.The court said that the IO's conduct raised serious questions as despite having the phone in custody since May 15, the IO was unable to access its contents due to the accused's refusal to provide the password. “While the phone is under analysis, there is no explanation for why the IO has been equally passive in obtaining electronic data from the other side — from the victim and the complainant,” the Court said. It added that the IO proceeded on the assumption that the complainant's account was accurate, without subjecting it to independent verification through the available electronic evidence. Such an approach, the judge said, was inconsistent with the standard of professional and impartial investigation that a case of such nature demands.While acknowledging the personal sensitivity of the matter, the Court observed that a judicial officer involved as the principal victim was expected to maintain the highest standards of transparency. It said that the judge should place on record her complete WhatsApp communications, Tinder data and other relevant electronic evidence so that the full truth could emerge.“If the victim truly intends to bring the accused to justice, the surest path to that outcome is full and immediate disclosure of all communications. Selective silence or strategic presentation of evidence serves neither the cause of justice ...

Delhi Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Duping Judge Of ₹52 Lakh Through Tinder, Slams Investigating Officer For Lapses In Probe

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Delhi Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Duping Judge Of ₹52 Lakh Through Tinder, Slams Investigating Officer For Lapses In Probe

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers