How a single meeting on a dating app allegedly snowballed into a ₹52 lakh fraud and honey-trap case is at the heart of a matter in which a Delhi court has firmly refused bail to the accused, Deepak Vats. He is alleged to have used the cover of an emotional relationship to obtain more than ₹52 lakh from a judicial officer in Haryana.
Why the court turned down bail
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler dismissed the bail plea with pointed remarks about the accused's conduct. The court took the view that, rather than cooperating with the investigation, Vats had been obstructing it. The judge noted that the accused placed only selective portions of his conversations and communications before the investigating agencies, while concealing several crucial details. In the court's assessment, the evidence gathered against him so far raises serious questions on its own, and the material he submitted is incomplete.
Where it began — a dating app
The entire dispute stems from a relationship that allegedly began through a dating app. According to the complaint, the accused exploited that emotional bond to extract more than ₹52 lakh from the judicial officer. Vats, however, tells a very different story — he claims the relationship was consensual and that every financial transaction between them was made entirely voluntarily.
The gaps in the investigation the court flagged
During the hearing, the court questioned not only the accused but also the manner in which the probe had been conducted. The judge underlined that even though the accused's mobile phone was with the police, not enough effort had been made to collect electronic evidence linked to the complainant's side.
With that in mind, the court issued a set of clear directions to the investigating officer. The officer was told to gather the complete dating-app chat, WhatsApp records, call detail records and details of the alleged meetings between the two parties. In addition, the court ordered scrutiny of a ₹5 lakh cash deposit and of the entities through which the money was routed.
The complaint came from a domestic help, not the victim herself
The court separately noted an unusual aspect of the case. The FIR was lodged not by the judicial officer herself but by her domestic help — even though most of the financial transactions had flowed from the judicial officer's own accounts. The court observed that, on reading the complaint, the identity of the actual victim is not entirely clear.
At the same time, the judge made it clear that hiding facts out of social hesitation or for private reasons cannot serve as an excuse for failing to cooperate with the investigation. Weighing the gravity of the matter against the evidence available so far, the court concluded that the accused was not fully cooperating, and on that basis declined to grant him bail.
