Jyoti Rani Alias Jyoti Malhotra vs State Of Haryana on 7 March, 2026

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jyoti Rani Alias Jyoti Malhotra vs State Of Haryana on 7 March, 2026

                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                             Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025

                                                                         Reserved On: 27.02.2026
                                                                       Pronounced On: 07.03.2026


                     Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra
                                                                                       ... Petitioner(s)

                                                          Versus

                     State of Haryana
                                                                                     ... Respondent(s)

                     CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

                     Present:      Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocates
                                   for the petitioner(s).

                                   Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General,
                                   Haryana, for the respondent.

                     Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition for bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has

been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 153 dated 16.05.2025,

for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 3, 4 and 5 of ‘the

Official Secrets Act, 1923‘ and Section 152 of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023’ Police Station Hisar Civil Lines, District Hisar, Haryana.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI/SHO

Bijender Singh’, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. According to above

named police officer, in response to information received from the office of

‘Superintendent of Police, Hisar’, inquiries were made from ‘Jyoti Rani alias

Jyoti Malhotra’ daughter of Harish Kumar (petitioner herein), resident of

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06 New Aggarsain Extension, EBS Road, Hisar, in the presence of ‘ASI
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 2

Suman’. The above named police officer further reported that during the

course of inquiry it was stated by the petitioner that she is a ‘Youtuber’

having a channel by the name of ‘Travel-with-Jo’, and that for visit to

Pakistan she had come in the contact of an official of Pakistan High

Commission at Delhi. As per report, the petitioner further stated that the

above-said official, namely ‘Ehsan-Ur-Rahim alias Danish’ had mobile

number ‘9810488939’, and that when she visited Pakistan on two occasions,

at the instance of ‘Ehsan-Ur-Rahim alias Danish’ she met ‘Ali Ahwan’ who

made arrangements for her stay and travel in Pakistan. The abovesaid report

further stated that the petitioner also disclosed that in Pakistan ‘Ali Ahwan’

arranged her meetings with the officers of Pakistan Security & Intelligence

Agency, and that she met there with ‘Shakir’ and ‘Rana Shahbaz’. The

petitioner also stated to the police officer that mobile number of ‘Shakir’ was

‘923176250069’, and that once she returned to India she continued to be in

touch with the above said persons through ‘WhatsApp’, ‘Snapchat’,

‘Telegram’ and other social media platforms, and that she also passed on

various important & sensitive information to the above named persons.

3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned

information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken

up.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner

is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and

that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 3

prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of nine months,

and that the final report in this case has already been filed by the police. In

view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner and

therefore, detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve

any purpose.

6. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the entire prosecution case is based upon an imaginary story having no

substance at all, and that out of nothing a hype has been created by the

prosecuting agency against the petitioner, who is a simpleton lady having her

‘YouTube Channel’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if the

prosecution case is taken into consideration in its entirety the only allegation

against the petitioner which comes on surface is that she was in contact of

the official of Pakistan High Commission who has been declared a ‘persona

non grata’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner

had visited Pakistan on two occasions and therefore, having contact with the

officials of Pakistan High Commission in itself does not amount to an

offence.

7. With regard to allegations against the petitioner that she had

contacts with the operatives of Pakistan Intelligence Agency through social

media platform, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that except the bald allegations and the disclosure/confessional statements of

the petitioner, which were recorded when the petitioner was in police

custody, there is no evidence at all. While claiming that the above-mentioned

statements are hit by Section 23 of ‘the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 4

2023′, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present

case is the case of no evidence against the petitioner, but she is being

subjected to prolonged incarceration.

8. The focus of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner has

also been upon the plea that the main allegation against the petitioner is with

regard to taking photographs of ‘Pandoh Dam’. As per learned counsel for

the petitioner, ‘Pandoh Dam’ is not a prohibited area, and that most of the

details & photographs of ‘Pandoh Dam’ are already in public domain, as the

same have been posted on the website of the concerned department.

9. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

also contended that the law of the land prescribes that ‘bail is a rule and jail

is an exception’, and that in the present case the petitioner, who is an

unmarried young lady having no criminal background, is entitled for the

concession of bail particularly when the investigation in this case is already

complete and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

10. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of “C.B.I. New Delhi v. Abhishek

Verma” AIR Supreme Court 2399, wherein it has been observed that the

presumption enshrined under Section 3(2) of the Official Secrets Act is a

rebutable presumption.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the

principles of law laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of

“Aniruddha Bahal, Niraj Kumar and Thomas Mathew v. Central Bureau of

Investigation” 2014(16) RCR (Criminal) 1092, wherein it has been observed
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 5

that with regard to commission of offence punishable under the Official

Secrets Act, the trial would be governed by the procedure laid down under

the Official Secrets Act.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the

principles laid down by the Telangana High Court in the case of “Ramakant

Dixit v. State of Telangana and Another” 2023 Supreme(Online)(TEL)

1123, wherein it has been observed that under Section 13(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the courts are restrained from taking cognizance

unless a complaint is made by order or under any authority from the

appropriate government, and that the complaint excludes police reports as

per Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon

the principles of law laid by the Bombay High Court in the case of “Rohan

Tukaram alias Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli and Others” Writ

Petition [Stamp] No. 20054 of 2022, decided on 08.12.2022, wherein it has

been observed that registration of FIR under Section 3 of the Official

Secrets Act for taking photographs outside police station is unjustified.

14. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-

mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, during the course

of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner had been secretly meeting

with the officers of Pakistan High Commission, namely ‘Ehsan-Ur-Rahim

alias Danish’, and that she was in contact of other operatives of Pakistan

Intelligence Agencies, also. As per learned State counsel, during the course

of investigation, when the petitioner was interrogated it was revealed that

‘Ehsan-Ur-Rahim alias Danish’ with whom the petitioner had been meeting
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 6

was declared a ‘persona non grata’ by the Ministry of External Affairs,

Government of India and was forced to leave country on 14.05.2025.

15. According to learned State counsel when the electronic devices

being used by the petitioner such as her laptop, three mobile phones and

other documents were seized, and got examined from Cyber Forensic

Laboratory. It has also been claimed by the prosecution that social media

accounts of the petitioner such as ‘Facebook’, ‘Instagram’, ‘WhatsApp’,

‘Gmail’, ‘YouTube’ etc. have also been examined and the details of her bank

transactions have also been collected.

16. As per learned State counsel, on examination of the above-

mentioned evidence, it has been found that the petitioner was in constant

touch through ‘WhatsApp Call’ and other social media platforms with

various officers of the neighbouring country, i.e. Pakistan, and that she was

passing on sensitive information pertaining to strategic installation to the

officials of the Pakistan Intelligence Agency. The learned State counsel has

further contended that in the above-mentioned pursuit the petitioner even

visited ‘Pandoh Dam’, video-graphed it including the videographies of

prohibited area, and transmitted the above-mentioned information to the

operatives of Pakistan Intelligence Agency, namely ‘Shakir Jatt Randhawa’,

‘Rana Shahbaz’, ‘Namun Randhawa’, ‘Ali Hasan’, ‘Ali Ahwan’ etc.

17. The learned State counsel has further contended that the

petitioner in order to keep her conversation secret, firstly used only social

media platform and secondly she used to delete the details of chat and

conversation from his electronic device. It has also been contended by

learned State counsel that the petitioner, in addition to video-footages of
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 7

‘Pandoh Dam’, also collected the details through videography of

‘Munnabau Railway Station, ‘CRPF Centre’ and passed on the above-

mentioned sensitive information to Pakistan Intelligence Agency. In order to

substantiate its allegations the learned State counsel has primarily relied

upon the conduct of the petitioner such as:-

a) deleting the details of communication from his

electronic devices;

b) while seeking visa for Pakistan instead of using general

channels of visit through ‘Hindu Jathha’ she got privilege

treatment from Pakistan High Commission and got

direct visa through ‘Mohammad Ehsan-Ur-Rahim’;

c) getting special accommodation booked with the help of

operative of Pakistan Intelligence Agency, namely ‘Ali

Ahwan’;

d) sharing of video footage and photographs of sensitive

locations of India such as ‘Pandoh Dam’, ‘Golden

Temple’, ‘Munnabau Railway Station’ and ‘CRPF

Centre’.

18. While claiming that by indulging in espionage activities and

hurting the interest of the nation a heinous crime has been committed by the

petitioner, the learned State counsel has urged for dismissal of the present

petition.

19. The record has been perused carefully.

20. In the present case, it is relevant to mention here that the

allegations against the petitioner are with regard to her involvement in anti-
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 8

national and espionage activities by passing over sensitive information to

the officials of Pakistan Intelligence Agency. To support its above-mentioned

stand the prosecution is relying upon the disclosure statement of the

petitioner, which is supported and corroborated by the recovery of electronic

gadgets being used by the petitioner. The above-mentioned evidence is

further supported and corroborated from the fact that there had been an

effort on the part of the petitioner to delete information with regard to

conversations and transmission of information to the operatives of Pakistan

Intelligence Agency. Once this prima facie evidence has been collected by

the prosecution the presumption enshrined under Section 4 of the Official

Secrets Act comes into picture. Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act provides

that –

“(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under

section 3, the fact that he has been in communication with, or

attempted to communicate with a foreign agent, whether within

or without India, shall be relevant for the purpose of proving

that he has, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of

the State, obtained or attempted to obtain information which is

calculated to be or might be, or is intended to be, directly or

indirectly, useful to any enemy.

(2) For the purpose of this section, but without prejudice to

the generality of the foregoing provision,–

(a) a person may be presumed to have been in

communication with a foreign agent if–

(i) he has, either within or without India; visited
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 9

the address of a foreign agent or consorted or

associated with a foreign agent, or

(ii) either within or without India, the name or

address of, or any other information regarding, a

foreign agent has been found in his possession, or

has been obtained by him from any other person;

(b) the expression “foreign agent” includes any person

who is or has been or in respect of whom it appears that

there are reasonable grounds for suspecting him of being

or having been employed by a foreign power, either

directly or indirectly, for the purpose of committing an

act, either within or without India, prejudicial to the

safety or interests of the State, or who has or is

reasonably suspected of having, either within or without

India, committed, or attempted to commit, such an act in

the interests of a foreign power;

(c) any address, whether within or without India, in

respect of which it appears that there are reasonable

grounds for suspecting it of being an address used for the

receipt of communications intended for a foreign agent,

or any address at which a foreign agent resides, or to

which he resorts for the purpose of giving or receiving

communications, or at which he carries on any business,

may be presumed to be the address of a foreign agent,

and communications addressed to such an address to be
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 10

communications with a foreign agent.”

21. In addition to above, Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act

provides that:-

“(1) If any person having in his possession or control any

secret official code or pass word or any sketch, plan, model,

article, note, document or information which relates to or is

used in a prohibited place or relates to anything in such a place,

or which is likely to assist, directly or indirectly, an enemy or

which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to

affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the

State or friendly relations with foreign States or which has been

made or obtained in contravention of this Act, or which has

been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding

office under Government, or which he has obtained or to which

he has had access owing to his position as a person who holds

or has held office under Government, or as a person who holds

or has held a contract made, on behalf of Government, or as a

person who is or has been employed under a person who holds

or has held such an office or contract-

                                        (a)    wilfully communicates the code or pass word,

                                        sketch,   plan,   model,   article,   note,   document    or

information to any person other than a person to whom

he is authorised to communicate it or a Court of Justice

or a person to whom it is, in the interests of the State his

duty to communicate it; or
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 11

(b) uses the information in his possession for the

benefit of any foreign power or in any other manner

prejudicial to the safety of the State; or

(c) retains the sketch, plan, model, article, note or

document in his possession or control when he has no

right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to

retain it, or wilfully fails to comply with all directions

issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or

disposal thereof; or

(d) fails to take reasonable care of, or so conducts

himself as to endanger the safety of, the sketch, plan,

model, article, note, document, secret official code or

pass word or information; he shall be guilty of an offence

under this section.

(2) If any person voluntarily receives any secret official code

or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document

or information knowing or having reasonable ground to believe,

at the time when he receives it, that the code, pass word, sketch,

plan, model, article, note, document or information is

communicated in contravention of this Act, he shall be guilty of

an offence under this section.

(3) If any person having in his possession or control any

sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information,

which relates to munitions of war, communicates it, directly or

indirectly, to any foreign power or in any other manner
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 12

prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, he shall be

guilty of an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

three years, or with fine, or with both.”

22. With regard to bail to an accused facing prosecution for the

commission of offence under the Official Secrets Act, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of “State v. Captain Jagjit Singh” AIR1962

Supreme Court 253 has observed that in view of nature of offence allegedly

committed by the accused, who were charged with an offence for conspirary

and offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act the accused is

not entitled for the bail. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India set-aside the order passed by the High Court, whereby the

benefit of bail was accorded to the respondent/accused.

23. Similarly in the case of “State (Through Commissioner of

Police Special Branch), Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill” AIR 1984 Supreme Court

1503 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the offences

under the Official Secrets Act relate to security of the State and therefore,

the same are serious in nature. In the above-mentioned case, too, the benefit

of bail accorded by High Court to the respondent/accused was withdrawn by

the the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

24. In the light of observations made in the above-mentioned cases,

if the facts related to present case are analyzed, it transpires that:-

i) firstly there is ample evidence, collected by the

Investigating Agency, with regard to involvement of
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 13

petitioner in the commission of crime; and

ii) secondly there is confessional statement of the petitioner

which led to the discovery of facts related to this case;

and

iii) thirdly there is a presumption of Section 4 of the Official

Secrets Act and thus, the involvement of petitioner in the

commission of crime is prima facie established.

25. It is also relevant to note here that a bare perusal of the contents

of Sections 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act makes it abundantly clear that

firstly the information so collected by the petitioner comes within the ambit

of prohibited information and secondly the conduct of petitioner raises a

presumption about her involvement in the commission of crime under the

Official Secrets Act. In addition to above, it is also pertinent to mention here

that in the present case cognizance against the petitioner has also been taken

for the commission of offence punishable under Section 152 of ‘the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’, which prescribes as under:-

“Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or

written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by

electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or

otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed

rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of

separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and

integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall

be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment

which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 14

fine.”

26. Taking into consideration the fact that the allegations against

the petitioner are for the commission of very serious nature of offence, i.e.

indulging in anti-national activities and passing on sensitive information to

the neighbouring country, and also that, that to support the above-mentioned

stand of the prosecution there is sufficient prima facie evidence, without

commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that in view

of conduct of the petitioner, the gravity of offence and other mitigating

circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. Hence,

being without merits, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

27. It is, however, clarified that any observations made in the

above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on

the merits of the case.

(Surya Partap Singh)
Judge
March 07, 2026
“DK”

                               Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
                               Whether reportable           : Yes/No




DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.03.09 20:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document