An Indian-origin public servant in Australia has been denied bail after being accused of stalking a woman he met through a dating app and threatening to use government systems to obtain information about her.

Suyash Sinha, 31, appeared before the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Magistrates Court on October 14 after police arrested him during a search of his property. The court heard allegations that he continued contacting the woman after she made it clear she was not interested in a relationship.

According to prosecutors, Sinha allegedly sent repeated messages and, in August, described what the woman was wearing while she was at a supermarket where he also worked. The incident reportedly made her fear that she was being followed.

The woman later agreed to meet him at a pub to ask him to stop contacting her. During the meeting, Sinha allegedly said he worked in finance for the ACT government. When she mentioned having brothers, he allegedly named one of them and said people could be looked up through government systems.

The woman continued to receive messages and multiple social media friend requests from accounts with intimidating or harassing usernames, according to evidence presented in court. She approached police in September and was advised to deactivate her social media accounts.

Prosecutors opposed bail, arguing that Sinha was fixated on the woman and that his release could put her safety at risk or allow him to interfere with witnesses or evidence. The court also heard that the woman was frightened and experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress.

Special Magistrate Lucinda Wilson refused the bail application, citing concerns about the woman’s safety and well-being. Police reportedly seized electronic devices during a search of Sinha’s home.

The case is scheduled to return to court in November. Sinha has not entered a plea, and the allegations remain before the court.

The case highlights the potential risks associated with persistent unwanted contact and alleged misuse of access to sensitive information. Any claim of access to government databases remains an allegation in this case, not an established finding that such access occurred.