Bail for offences under the Official Secrets Act is not granted lightly when serious allegations of espionage and substantial evidence exist against the accused.

JUDGMENT

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 new Aggarsain Extension, EBS Road, Hisar, in the presence of ‘ASI 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 above said 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 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