YouTuber Accused of Sharing Sensitive Installations With Pakistan Intelligence Not Entitled to Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Jyoti Rani @ Jyoti Malhotra v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 07 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-68099-2025
Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that an accused facing allegations of espionage and transmission of sensitive information to foreign intelligence agencies is not entitled to the concession of bail where prima facie evidence indicates communication with foreign agents and sharing of information relating to strategic installations. Considering the seriousness of offences under the Official Secrets Act and Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court declined bail despite completion of investigation and filing of the final report.
Summary: The petition before the High Court sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No.153 dated 16.05.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a YouTuber operating a channel named “Travel-with-Jo”, had come into contact with an official of the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi, namely Ehsan-Ur-Rahim alias Danish. During her visits to Pakistan, she allegedly met individuals associated with Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and thereafter continued communication with them through social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Snapchat and Telegram. According to the investigation, she transmitted sensitive information and video recordings relating to strategic installations in India.
The defence argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and that the case was built upon mere conjectures and statements allegedly made during police custody. It was contended that there was no independent evidence against her apart from disclosure statements, which were inadmissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The defence also submitted that the primary allegation related to taking photographs of Pandoh Dam, which was not a prohibited area and whose images were already available in the public domain. It was further argued that the petitioner had been in custody for approximately nine months, the investigation had been completed, and therefore continued incarceration served no purpose.
The State opposed the bail plea and submitted that electronic devices including the petitioner’s laptop and mobile phones were seized and examined by cyber forensic experts. According to the prosecution, examination of social media accounts and digital evidence revealed that the petitioner maintained regular contact with individuals linked to Pakistan intelligence agencies and had transmitted sensitive information concerning installations such as Pandoh Dam, CRPF Centre, Munnabau Railway Station and other locations. The State further alleged that the petitioner deliberately deleted chat histories and communications to conceal these activities.
The Court examined the statutory presumptions under Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act which permit the drawing of an inference of prejudicial intent where a person is shown to have been in communication with a foreign agent. The Court also referred to precedents of the Supreme Court which emphasized that offences under the Official Secrets Act involve matters concerning the security of the State and therefore must be treated with seriousness.
Upon considering the record, the Court observed that the prosecution had collected prima facie material indicating communication with foreign agents and recovery of electronic devices corroborating the allegations. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s conduct, including deletion of communications and transmission of video footage of strategic locations, supported the prosecution’s case at this stage.
Decision: The High Court held that the allegations involved serious anti-national activities relating to transmission of sensitive information to a foreign intelligence agency and were supported by prima facie evidence. In view of the gravity of the offences and the statutory presumption under the Official Secrets Act, the Court declined to grant bail and dismissed the petition.