Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Bail to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra

While displaying absolute zero tolerance for espionage for Pakistani intelligence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra Vs State of Haryana in Criminal Misc. No. M-68099 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:PHHC:034750 that was reserved on 27.02.2026 and then finally pronounced on 07.03.2026 has denied bail to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra who was arrested last year for allegedly passing sensitive information to officials of Pakistani intelligence.

It must be disclosed here that Jyoti who was a travel influencer from Haryana was arrested on May 16, 2025 in a case that had been registered under provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Official Secrets Act.

The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Surya Pratap Singh conceded that there was ample evidence against Malhotra including regarding her attempts to delete information related to conversations and the transmission of sensitive data to operatives of the Pakistan intelligence agency.

It also must be laid bare that while observing that the allegations of indulging in anti-national activities and passing on sensitive information to the neighbouring country are very serious, the Chandigarh High Court denied bail to the accused. Very rightly so!

Case Background and Legal Provisions

It must be disclosed here that Jyoti who was a travel influencer from Haryana was arrested on May 16, 2025 in a case that had been registered under provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Official Secrets Act.

Seriousness of Allegations

The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Surya Pratap Singh conceded that there was ample evidence against Malhotra including regarding her attempts to delete information related to conversations and the transmission of sensitive data to operatives of the Pakistan intelligence agency.

• Attempts to delete information related to conversations.
• Transmission of sensitive data to operatives of the Pakistan intelligence agency.
• Allegations of indulging in anti-national activities.
• Passing on sensitive information to the neighbouring country.

It also must be laid bare that while observing that the allegations of indulging in anti-national activities and passing on sensitive information to the neighbouring country are very serious, the Chandigarh High Court denied bail to the accused. Very rightly so!

Opening Observation of the Court

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Surya Pratap Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that,

“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.”

Background Of The Case

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “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 abovesaid 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.”

Key Individuals Mentioned In The FIR

Communication Platforms Mentioned

• WhatsApp
• Snapchat
• Telegram
• Other Social Media Platforms

Registration Of The FIR

As we see, the Bench then states in para 3 that, “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.”

Court Observations On Evidence

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “In the present case, it is relevant to mention here that the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to her involvement in anti- national and espionage activities by passing over sensitive information to the officials of Pakistan Intelligence Agency.

To support its above-mentioned stand the prosecution is relying upon the disclosure statement of the petitioner, which is supported and corroborated by the recovery of electronic gadgets being used by the petitioner.

The above-mentioned evidence is further supported and corroborated from the fact that there had been an effort on the part of the petitioner to delete information with regard to conversations and transmission of information to the operatives of Pakistan Intelligence Agency.

Once this prima facie evidence has been collected by the prosecution the presumption enshrined under Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act comes into picture.

Section 4 Of The Official Secrets Act

Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act provides that –

“(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under section 3, the fact that he has been in communication with, or attempted to communicate with a foreign agent, whether within or without India, shall be relevant for the purpose of proving that he has, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, obtained or attempted to obtain information which is calculated to be or might be, or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to any enemy.

(2) For the purpose of this section, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision,—”

Presumptions Under Section 4

• (a) A person may be presumed to have been in communication with a foreign agent if:
  • (i) He has, either within or without India; visited the address of a foreign agent or consorted or associated with a foreign agent, or
  • (ii) Either within or without India, the name or address of, or any other information regarding, a foreign agent has been found in his possession, or has been obtained by him from any other person;
• (b) The expression “foreign agent” includes any person who is or has been or in respect of whom it appears that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting him of being or having been employed by a foreign power, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of committing an act, either within or without India, prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, or who has or is reasonably suspected of having, either within or without India, committed, or attempted to commit, such an act in the interests of a foreign power;
• (c) Any address, whether within or without India, in respect of which it appears that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting it of being an address used for the receipt of communications intended for a foreign agent, or any address at which a foreign agent resides, or to which he resorts for the purpose of giving or receiving communications, or at which he carries on any business, may be presumed to be the address of a foreign agent, and communications addressed to such an address to be communications with a foreign agent.”

Judicial Observations On Bail Under The Official Secrets Act

Reference To State v. Captain Jagjit Singh Case

While citing relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 22 that:

“With regard to bail to an accused facing prosecution for the commission of offence under the Official Secrets Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “State v. Captain Jagjit Singh” AIR1962 Supreme Court 253 has observed that in view of nature of offence allegedly committed by the accused, who were charged with an offence for conspiracy and offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act the accused is not entitled for the bail. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set-aside the order passed by the High Court, whereby the benefit of bail was accorded to the respondent/accused.”

Reference To State (Through Commissioner Of Police Special Branch), Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill Case

While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench states in para 23 that:

“Similarly in the case of “State (Through Commissioner of Police Special Branch), Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill” AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1503 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the offences under the Official Secrets Act relate to security of the State and therefore, the same are serious in nature. In the above-mentioned case, too, the benefit of bail accorded by High Court to the respondent/accused was withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”

Key Findings Of The Court

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 26 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:

“Taking into consideration the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are for the commission of very serious nature of offence, i.e. indulging in anti-national activities and passing on sensitive information to the neighbouring country, and also that, that to support the above-mentioned stand of the prosecution there is sufficient prima facie evidence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that in view of conduct of the petitioner, the gravity of offence and other mitigating circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. Hence, being without merits, the present petition is hereby dismissed.”

Clarification By The Court

Finally and for sake of clarity, the Bench then concludes by directing and clarifying in para 27 holding that:

“It is, however, clarified that any observations made in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Key Takeaway From The Judgment

In a nutshell, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it indubitably clear that those who spy for Pakistani Intelligence Agency cannot be given bail on one pretext or the other as it is a very serious offence of betraying one’s own nation by colluding with foreign powers and intelligence agencies of hostile foreign countries like Pakistan. But she has the option of going in appeal to the Division Bench or to the Apex Court! But it is undoubtedly a very big serious setback for her as she will have to be in jail unless bail is granted to her which seems most unlikely given her involvement in most serious offence of espionage for Pakistani Intelligence Agency unless her lawyers prove otherwise in court later!

Important Cases Referred

Major Legal Principles Highlighted

• Offences under the Official Secrets Act relate directly to the security of the State.
• Such offences are considered extremely serious by courts.
• Bail may be denied when there is prima facie evidence of espionage or anti-national activities.
• Courts may set aside bail orders granted by lower courts in matters affecting national security.
• Observations made during bail hearings should not influence the final merits of the trial.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.