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 9the 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 10communications 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 12prejudicial 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 13petitioner 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 14fine.”
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
