AI generated imageNEW DELHI: A Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer of more than Rs 52 lakh through a relationship that began on the dating app Tinder. The court observed that the accused had received funds, withheld key electronic evidence and failed to co-operate with the investigation.Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of the Patiala house court rejected the bail plea of Deepak Vats, noting that his conduct amounted to "active obstruction of the investigation."The FIR in this case was not lodged by the judicial officer herself but in the name of Diksha Devi, her domestic worker, who alleged that she had been cheated through an online dating application, as per a report by LiveLaw.The court called this the most striking aspect of the case as Diksha Devi had not initiated a single digital payment connected to the fraud, and that almost all the transactions was made from the bank accounts of her employer. The complaint, the court said, did not appear to "reflect the true complainant."According to the accused, it was the judicial officer who had initiated contact through a fake profile, after which a consensual relationship developed.He claimed all financial transfers were voluntary and that the judge herself had proposed depositing funds into an online gaming or betting account maintained in his name.He further claimed that the complaint was filed through the domestic worker only after the relationship turned sour.However, the court, observed that the accused's conduct during the investigation was deeply troubling. It noted that he had selectively produced only the messages sent by the judge while withholding his replies for the same.It also observed that the pattern of financial transactions "correlating so precisely and immediately" with the WhatsApp communications between the parties was consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap.The court said the transactions must be read alongside communications that left no doubt the two were in a relationship of "deep emotional and physical intimacy."The court also sharply criticised the investigating officer for serious lapses in the probe. Despite having the accused's phone in custody since 15 May, the investigating officer had been unable to access its contents because the accused refused to provide the password.More critically, the court noted that the investigating officer had made no effort to obtain electronic evidence from the victim's side either — no complete Tinder chats, no WhatsApp records, no call data. It directed the investigating officer to obtain all such records, verify the alleged physical meetings, investigate a Rs 5 lakh cash deposit, and examine the entities through which money was routed.The court stressed that the IO's duty was "to investigate the truth impartially, without fear or favour, regardless of the status of the parties," adding that the status of the victim as a judicial officer should be a reason for greater diligence, not lesser.It also directed the judicial officer herself to place her complete WhatsApp communications, Tinder data and other electronic evidence on the record, observing that "selective silence or strategic presentation of evidence serves neither the cause of justice nor the victim's own stated objective."Considering the ongoing probe, the risk of evidence tampering, and the accused's prior criminal antecedents, the court found no grounds to grant bail.