From Facebook Gun Photos to Alleged Pakistan Spy: Punjab HC Grants Bail Amid Evidence Gaps

In a significant ruling on April 1, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh granted regular bail to Davender Singh alias Davinder Singh, accused of espionage for Pakistan-linked individuals during the sensitive period of "Operation Sindoor." Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, delivering the oral judgment, emphasized the absence of concrete evidence beyond a custodial disclosure statement and the lack of mandatory prosecution sanction under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The petitioner faced charges under Sections 152 and 238(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act in FIR No. 31 at Kaithal's Cyber Crime Police Station.

Old Social Media Posts Spark a Chain of Cases

The saga began in May 2025 when secret information led to FIR No. 108 under the Arms Act, 1959, at Guhla Police Station. Davender was accused of uploading photos from 2018 showing him with pistols and a gun on Facebook—images over seven years old. Police seized his mobile phone during this probe. Bail was granted on May 15, 2025, but on the same day, a second FIR emerged from an alleged disclosure during interrogation by Sub-Inspector Sumit Kumar of the Special Detective Unit.

Prosecution claimed Davender confessed to contacts made in Pakistan during a November 2024 pilgrimage to Kartarpur Sahib and Nankana Sahib. He reportedly linked up with "Shah Ji," Rasid Mohammad, Arslan, and Riza—suspected ISI agents—who facilitated his stay. Back in India, he allegedly stayed connected via WhatsApp and Snapchat, transferred Rs. 1,500 at Shah Ji's behest, recorded Indian Army movements (including Patiala establishments), and shared sensitive info electronically. A video of army vehicles was found on his phone, and he supposedly deleted data fearing arrest. Media reports highlighted ties to "Operation Sindoor," a military operation starting May 9, 2025, post-Pahalgam incident.

Petitioner's Counsel Fires on All Fronts: No Proof, Legit Trip, Procedural Lapses

Senior Advocate Deepender Singh, assisted by others, argued the case rested solely on a self-incriminating disclosure without recoveries or independent evidence. The phone was already in custody from the Arms FIR, and no new items surfaced. Calls with Shah Ji spanned April 18 to May 10, 2025—pre-Operation Sindoor—with no post-start communications. The army video? No proof it was shared or tied to the operation.

They stressed Davender's trip was a supervised religious pilgrimage under visa rules, confined to gurdwara premises. No radicalization, motive, or pecuniary gain was shown. Critically, Official Secrets Act prosecution needs prior government sanction—sought in July 2025 but pending nine months, barring cognizance. Section 152 BNS (endangering sovereignty) wasn't prima facie met, lacking proof of national security threat. With clean antecedents beyond these FIRs, bail was urged.

State Counsels Grapple with Court's Tough Queries

Assistant AG Chhavi Sharma countered that multiple talks with ISI-linked Shah Ji influenced Davender to share secrets, posing a sovereignty threat. Sections 3/4 of the Official Secrets Act were later added, investigation closed, charge-sheet filed.

But Justice Bhardwaj grilled: Why a second FIR when evidence (video) was from the first? How was disclosure recorded by Cyber Crime SI? Call details? Shah Ji's ISI link basis? Video shared? Motive/pecuniary gain? Corroboration beyond disclosure? State counsel admitted no proof of transmission, unclear video timeline, affinity via "ancestral roots" as motive—but no specifics on shared info.

Bench Pierces the Veil: Evidence Too Thin, Trial Stalled

The court dissected the claims, noting the prosecution's inability to substantiate sharing or security impact. Media coverage echoed this, with reports like those from legal portals underscoring the state's evidentiary voids. No precedents were cited, but the ruling hinged on bail principles under Section 483 BNSS: custody duration, clean record, arguable defenses, and procedural hurdles like absent sanction halting trial. It distinguished mere possession (video/calls) from transmission/endangerment.

Key Observations

"Learned State Counsel, however, is not in a position to refer to any specific material on the basis whereof it may be assumed that any video or photographs had been transmitted or shared by the petitioner herein with any other person, including those based in Pakistan." (Para 10)

"There is nothing apart from the self incriminating disclosure statement of the petitioner recorded while in custody." (Para 5)

"For the initiation of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, prior sanction of the Government of India is a mandatory precondition... despite the lapse of nearly 09 months, no sanction has been accorded till date." (Para 7)

"Till such time the prosecution sanction is obtained, the trial cannot commence against the petitioner." (Para 14)

Freedom on Bail Bonds: Cautions and Caveats Ahead

The petition succeeded: Davender was ordered released on bail bonds to the trial court's satisfaction, without threats to witnesses. Observations don't bind the merits; trial court decides afresh. Implications? Reinforces need for evidence beyond confessions in security cases, highlights sanction delays' impact on liberty, and signals scrutiny of sequential FIRs from same evidence. For future espionage probes, corroboration and procedural compliance are key—lest bail becomes the norm.