Delhi Court Flags ‘Honeytrap’ Pattern in Rs 52 Lakh Tinder Scam Case
Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer of over Rs 52 lakh in an alleged Tinder-based romance scam, citing the seriousness of the allegations and an incomplete investigation.
SociapaHQ
Delhi court has dismissed the bail application of a man accused of duping a Haryana judicial officer of more than Rs 52 lakh through an online romance scam that allegedly began on the dating app Tinder, Bar and Bench reported.
The case stems from an alleged relationship that developed after the judicial officer got connected with the accused on Tinder. The man allegedly worked under a fake identity and persuaded the officer to invest in fake high-return schemes leading to transfers of over Rs 52 lakh to accounts linked to him, investigators said.
Also Read: Coca-Cola Bottler SLMG Expects Zero-Calorie Drinks to Contribute 6% of Sales by FY27
Alleged False Promises and Investments:
The probe found that the accused posed as a contact with a secret government department and allegedly convinced the officer to invest in opportunities with huge financial gains. But none of the benefits they promised ever materialised.
Prosecutors said the accused had used the relationship to gain the officer’s trust and then convince her to hand over large sums of money.
Court Flags ‘Honeytrap’ Pattern:
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, while rejecting the bail plea, observed that the financial transactions appeared to be in close proximity to the communication timeline between the two.
The court noted that the circumstances bore hallmarks of online romance frauds or “honeytrap” schemes, which involve the exploitation of personal relationships to facilitate financial fraud.
A key issue highlighted during the proceedings was the manner in which the complaint was lodged.
Also Read: Reebok India Doubles Sales, Crosses 210 Stores Under Aditya Birla Ownership
Instead of the judicial officer filing the complaint directly, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the name of her domestic worker.
The court noted that an examination of the financial records showed that nearly all the disputed payments originated from the judicial officer's bank accounts rather than those of the domestic worker, raising questions about why the complaint was filed through a third party.
The court observed that given the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the investigation is not complete, releasing the accused on bail at this stage might have a negative impact on the investigation.
