P&H High Court Denies Bail To YouTuber Jyoti Rani Accused Of Spying For Pakistan

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to a YouTuber accused of espionage and sharing sensitive information with operatives linked to Pakistan intelligence agencies, holding that the allegations involve serious offences affecting the security and sovereignty of the State.

Justice Surya Partap Singh dismissed the bail plea filed by Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra, observing that the prosecution had collected sufficient prima facie material indicating her involvement in anti-national activities.

Jyoti Rana sought bail in a case registered through FIR on May 16, 2025 at Civil Lines Police Station, Hisar under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner is a YouTuber running a channel titled “Travel-with-Jo.” During inquiries, she allegedly disclosed that she had come in contact with an official of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi, identified as Ehsan-Ur-Rahim alias Danish, while planning visits to Pakistan.

It was alleged that during her two visits to Pakistan, arrangements for her stay and travel were made by an individual named Ali Ahwan, who allegedly facilitated her meetings with officials of Pakistan's security and intelligence agencies.

The prosecution further alleged that after returning to India, the petitioner remained in touch with these individuals through platforms such as WhatsApp, Snapchat and Telegram and passed on sensitive information to them.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that she had been falsely implicated and that the case was based on an imaginary story without substantive evidence.

It was contended that the petitioner had already spent about nine months in custody, the investigation was complete and the final report had been filed, leaving nothing further to be recovered from her.

It was also submitted that the primary allegation related to taking photographs of Pandoh Dam, which is not a prohibited area and whose images are already available in the public domain.

Counsel further submitted that the prosecution was relying only on disclosure statements recorded while the petitioner was in police custody, which were inadmissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Relying on several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court , it was argued that the petitioner, being a young woman with no criminal antecedents, deserved the benefit of bail particularly since the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Opposing the petition, State of Haryana argued that the petitioner had maintained regular communication with operatives linked to Pakistan intelligence agencies and had shared sensitive information about strategic locations in India.

The prosecution claimed that electronic devices seized from the petitioner, including a laptop and mobile phones, were examined by a cyber forensic laboratory, and analysis of her social media accounts revealed frequent contact with the said individuals.

It was further alleged that the petitioner had videographed and transmitted footage of Pandoh Dam, Munnabao Railway Station, a CRPF centre and the Golden Temple, and had attempted to conceal evidence by deleting chats and communications from her devices.

After examining the record, the Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner related to espionage and passing sensitive information to a foreign intelligence agency, which are grave offences affecting national security.

The Court noted that the prosecution's case was supported by electronic evidence recovered from the petitioner's devices as well as her disclosure statements that led to the discovery of further material.

Referring to Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act, the Court observed that communication with a foreign agent raises a statutory presumption regarding prejudicial intent against the State's safety and interests.

The Court also relied on precedents of the Supreme Court, including State v. Captain Jagjit Singh and State (Through Commissioner of Police Special Branch) v. Jaspal Singh Gill, which held that offences under the Official Secrets Act are serious and bail should be granted with caution.

Taking into account the gravity of the allegations, the prima facie evidence collected by the investigating agency and the statutory presumption under the Official Secrets Act, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.

Accordingly, the bail petition was dismissed.

Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

Title: Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra v. State of Haryana