‘Honey Trap’ Plea Cannot Excuse Sharing Rafale and Air Force Station Images with Pakistan-Based Contact: Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Bail
Case Name: Sunil Kumar @ Sunny v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2026
Citation: CRM-M No. 35704 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a plea of being a victim of a honey trap does not justify the alleged transmission of photographs and sensitive information relating to Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt, Rafale fighter jets and adjoining Army areas to an unknown person whose mobile numbers were operating from Pakistan. Considering the strategic importance of the Air Force Station and the nature of the information allegedly transmitted, the Court found the accusations sufficiently grave to deny regular bail. The completion of investigation, filing of the final report and the petitioner’s custody of approximately nine months were held insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the apprehension of absconding or influencing witnesses. The Court, however, clarified that whether the petitioner was actually involved in espionage would be determined during trial and that its observations would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Acting upon secret information, the police arrested the petitioner on 2 January 2026. The prosecution alleged that he was communicating through three mobile numbers with a woman named Avni, whose numbers were found to be operating from Pakistan. He allegedly transmitted photographs and information relating to Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt, nearby Army areas and Rafale fighter jets.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and that no complaint had been made by the defence authorities. He argued that the alleged photographs of Rafale jets were freely available on the internet and did not constitute secret information. He further claimed to be a victim of a honey trap and questioned the investigation on the ground that his mobile phone remained in the police malkhana for about 75 days before being sent for forensic examination. It was also submitted that the investigation had concluded, the final report had been filed, there were 13 prosecution witnesses and the trial was likely to take considerable time.
Opposing bail, the State submitted that forensic examination revealed that several photographs had been deleted from the petitioner’s phone. It maintained that the petitioner had transmitted sensitive information concerning the Air Force Station and surrounding Army areas to contacts operating from Pakistan. The State also informed the Court that the requisite sanction for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act had been obtained.
The High Court observed that the petitioner had access to Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt, in his capacity as a supervisor. Even if his claim of having fallen into a honey trap were accepted for the purpose of considering bail, there was no justification for sharing photographs of the Air Force Station and Rafale jets with an unknown person. In these circumstances, the investigating agencies were justified in treating the matter as a suspected case of espionage, although the petitioner’s actual involvement remained a matter for determination at trial.
The Court stressed that Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt, is strategically important to national security and that transmission of information concerning it to a neighbouring country with which relations have historically been sensitive was an exceptionally serious matter. It further observed that criminal bail decisions cannot be governed by a straitjacket formula. The earlier bail orders relied upon by the petitioner were found factually distinguishable and incapable of supporting his claim for release.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail, finding no sufficient ground to release the petitioner in view of the gravity of the allegations, the strategic nature of the military installation involved, the alleged communication with Pakistan-operated numbers and the sanction obtained for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.