'Honey Trap' No Excuse: P&H High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Sharing Air Force Station, Rafale Jet Photos With Woman From Pakistan
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by a man accused under the Official Secrets Act and Section 152 BNS for allegedly sharing photographs of the Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt and Rafale jets with a woman operating from Pakistan, holding that even if the accused was a victim of a honey trap, there was no justification for sharing such sensitive...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by a man accused under the Official Secrets Act and Section 152 BNS for allegedly sharing photographs of the Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt and Rafale jets with a woman operating from Pakistan, holding that even if the accused was a victim of a honey trap, there was no justification for sharing such sensitive photographs with an unknown person from across the border. [2026 LL (PH) 326]
Justice Vikram Aggarwal said, "Even if it was a case of a honey trap, there was no occasion for the petitioner to share photographs of the air force station and the Rafale jets with an unknown person. Having done this, the investigating agencies were justified in treating it as a case of spying. Whether he was actually involved in the same or not would be determined only when the trial concludes. It has to be borne in mind that the Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt is a very strategic air force station for our country and such information going out to a neighbouring country with whom ties have not been very cordial is a serious matter. Such persons do not deserve to be released on bail."
The petitioner was arrested on 02.01.2026 based on secret information, following which it was found he was conversing with a woman named Avni through three mobile numbers traced to Pakistan.
He was found to have shared photographs of the Air Force Station, Ambala Cantt, and the surrounding Army area, including images of Rafale jets with her. The FIR was registered under Section 152 BNS and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and investigation concluded with a final report submitted.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated; that no complaint had ever been made by the Defence Authorities and the arrest proceeded solely on secret information; that no sanction under Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act had been obtained at the time.
He added that the photographs of the Rafale jet were freely available on Google and nothing "secret" had been shared; and that the petitioner was in fact a victim of a honey trap with no motive to share the photographs.
It was further argued that with 13 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined and investigation complete, continued custody served no purpose, relying on coordinate Bench rulings in Davender Singh v. State of Haryana, Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, and Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab.
The State opposed bail, submitting that the allegations were serious, that forensic examination of the phone (DITAC Lab) revealed several photographs had been deleted, and that the contacts were operating from Pakistan, to whom sensitive information about a strategic Air Force Station and surrounding army areas had been shared.
The Court held that regardless of whether the case originated from a honey trap, the petitioner, who had access to the air force station in his capacity as a supervisor, had no occasion to share photographs of the station and Rafale jets with an unknown person, and that the investigating agencies were justified in treating this as a case of espionage:
"Having done this, the investigating agencies were justified in treating it as a case of spying," it added.
The Court held that mere completion of investigation and nine months' custody did not, by themselves, warrant bail, and distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioner as arising from entirely different facts, reiterating that criminal bail matters admit of no straitjacket formula.
The Court also noted that, per the status report, the requisite sanction under the Official Secrets Act had since been obtained, which it held made the matter "even more serious."
Dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, the Court declined to release the petitioner on bail, clarifying that its observations would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr.Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate, Ms. Sundeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Varsha Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.