Right Swipe, Wrong Turn: Haryana Judge Loses Rs 52 Lakh To Alleged Tinder Honeytrap Scam
Right Swipe, Wrong Turn: Haryana Judge Loses Rs 52 Lakh To Alleged Tinder Honeytrap Scam Published By, Last Updated: June 12, 2026, 12:17 IST The
Right Swipe, Wrong Turn: Haryana Judge Loses Rs 52 Lakh To Alleged Tinder Honeytrap Scam Published By, Last Updated: June 12, 2026, 12:17 IST The case took an unusual turn as the complaint was not filed by the judge herself. Instead, the FIR was lodged in the name of her domestic worker Rapid Read Representative Image. (AI Generated) A Haryana judge was allegedly duped of more than Rs 52 lakh in a suspected honeytrap scam after matching on Tinder with a man who identified himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth" and claimed to be employed in a secret government department. According to the complaint, the two connected in November and eventually entered into a relationship, during which the accused allegedly convinced the judicial officer to invest money by promising lucrative returns. When the promised profits failed to materialise, allegations of cheating and fraud surfaced.
The case took an unusual turn as the complaint was not filed by the judge herself. Instead, the FIR was lodged in the name of her domestic worker, who claimed she had been deceived through the online dating platform. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After a lower court rejected his bail plea, he approached a sessions court for relief. While refusing bail, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler raised concerns over the manner in which the complaint had been filed. The court noted that nearly all the disputed transactions had originated from the judge’s bank accounts and observed that the complaint did not appear to identify the actual victim. It further remarked that the judicial officer had chosen to approach the criminal justice system indirectly rather than in her own name.
The judge acknowledged that victims of romance scams may experience embarrassment, but emphasised that such concerns could not override the need for a transparent and complete investigation. The order also highlighted shortcomings in the probe. Investigators had not secured the Tinder chats through which the two allegedly connected, nor had they collected the complete WhatsApp exchanges or call detail records. The court also criticised the accused for allegedly withholding information. It was observed that he had selectively produced messages sent by the officer while omitting his own responses and had not provided access to his phone. Calling the conduct “hide and seek", the court said his actions had further complicated the investigation. Since the investigation remains incomplete and crucial evidence is yet to be gathered, the court declined to grant bail. It directed investigators to obtain complete Tinder and WhatsApp records, verify the alleged meetings between the two, examine the entities involved in the movement of funds and expedite forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.
The BriefWire