Regular Bail Granted in Alleged Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Notes Absence of Prima Facie Evidence and Inapplicability of Sedition Analogue Post Stay of IPC Section 124
Case Name: Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 20 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-61274-2025
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, observing that there was no substantive corroborative evidence indicating communication with foreign agents, transmission of sensitive information, or any overt act establishing culpable intent. The Court emphasized the absence of material showing that the content shared was classified or that any unlawful benefit was received.
Summary: The present petition sought regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 152 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The allegations against the petitioner, a YouTube vlogger operating the channel “Jaan Mahal,” were that he had links with Pakistani intelligence (ISI) and was sharing sensitive information regarding Indian Army movements.
The prosecution case was primarily based on secret information and an alleged confessional statement. The petitioner had been in custody for over ten months. The defence argued that the allegations were unsupported by independent evidence and were based mainly on publicly available videos related to Bhakra Dam and Mohali Airport. It was further contended that one of the videos predated the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, thereby negating applicability of Section 152. It was also argued that the analogous provision of sedition under the erstwhile IPC i.e. Section 124 had already been stayed by the Supreme Court during the relevant period, and thus no such offence could be made out.
The defence also raised a legal objection regarding the invocation of the Official Secrets Act, asserting that under Section 13 of the Act, cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint by or under authority of the Central Government, which was absent in the present case.
Additionally, it was argued that although some Pakistani contact numbers were found on the petitioner’s phone, there was no evidence of any communication. The petitioner explained that these contacts were from his time residing in Norway.
The State could not dispute that no chats, messages, or communications had been recovered linking the petitioner to any Pakistani nationals, nor was there evidence that the uploaded content involved classified material. It was also admitted that the content appeared to be of publicly accessible locations.
Decision: The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner, taking into account the lack of corroborative evidence, absence of any direct or indirect communication with foreign agents, and the fact that no sensitive or classified information was shown to have been transmitted. The Court further noted that the petitioner had clean antecedents and had already undergone substantial custody. It also considered that the trial proceedings were stayed in a connected revision petition challenging the framing of charges. While granting bail, the Court imposed conditions restraining the petitioner from influencing witnesses or threatening any person, and clarified that the observations made would not affect the merits of the trial.