‘Operation Sindoor’: Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to man accused of spying for Pakistan’s ISI

Apart from the two FIRs, the petitioner has no other criminal cases, and his custody period is undisputed, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj noted.

Petitioner to be released on bail

The court, after hearing the submissions of the counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, found it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The order added, “State counsel is also not in a position to furnish any such particulars, nor could he clarify whether the said video pertained to the period between the incident at Pahalgam and/or the commencement of ‘Operation Sindoor’ or otherwise.”

Apart from the two FIRs, the petitioner has no other criminal cases, and his custody period is undisputed, the court said.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court also mentioned that the trial cannot start until an approval is received from the government under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. 

Photographs with weapons on Facebook

Senior Advocate Deepender Singh, along with others, on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner was registered based on secret information alleging that he had uploaded his photographs with a pistol and a gun on his Facebook account.

It was submitted that the petitioner had been taken into custody, notwithstanding the fact that the said photographs had been uploaded in the year 2018 and that a period of more than seven years had elapsed between the said act and the registration of the FIR.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was granted bail on May 15, 2025, and his phone was seized earlier in the FIR. However, on the same day, a new FIR was filed against him based on his alleged statement that he was in contact with “Shah Ji” in Pakistan and shared information about the Indian Army movements.

It was contended that the petitioner had visited Pakistan in November, 2024, along with a religious congregation, for a pilgrimage to Kartarpur Sahib and Nankana Sahib, and as per the terms of the conditions governing the visa, he remained confined to the gurudwara premises and was under the constant care and supervision of the gurudwara management during the entirety of his stay and never indulged in any illegality. 

Lack of material evidence

The petitioner’s lawyers submitted that there is no material evidence in this case. His phone was already seized in the earlier FIR, and nothing new was recovered. The case relies only on his own statement in custody.

Additionally, it was submitted that there were some calls with “Shah Ji” in Pakistan between April 18, 2025, and May 10, 2025, and one video of Army vehicles, but the calls happened before “Operation Sindoor” began on May 9, 2025, with no contact after. Also, there is no proof that the video was ever shared. Hence, the allegation of sharing sensitive information is unproven.

The petitioner’s lawyer submitted that an action under the Official Secrets Act requires prior approval from the central government. Although approval was sought in July 2025, it has not been granted even after nine months, so the court cannot take cognisance.

He vehemently argued that the offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was not made out, as there was no prima facie case against the petitioner showing that his actions endangered India’s sovereignty, unity or integrity.

State’s arguments 

Assistant advocate general Chavi Shamra, along with others for the state, contended that the petitioner was in communication with one “Shah Ji” and had been influenced by the said individual, who is alleged to be an agent of the ISI. 

It was contended that, pursuant to such influence, the petitioner shared sensitive information with the said person. It was also submitted that there had been several talks between the petitioner and “Shah Ji”, which established the charge against him. 

Alleged threat to security of India

• On the statement of a sub-inspector of the special detective unit, an FIR was registered on May 11, 2025, against the petitioner under the Arms Act for having uploaded his own photographs with pistols and a gun on Facebook.
• On May 15, 2025, the police party questioned the aforesaid accused, who, during the course of questioning, allegedly submitted a disclosure statement admitting his connections with certain persons based in Pakistan. 
• The petitioner allegedly disclosed that, in November 2024, he had travelled to Pakistan on a religious trip, during which he came into contact with some persons who identified themselves as Shah Ji, Rasid Mohammad, Arslan, and a female named Riza. It is averred that these persons facilitated his stay and other arrangements and were associated with espionage activities. 
• The accused allegedly disclosed that, upon his return to India, he remained in contact with the aforesaid persons through social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Snapchat, and, at the instance of one Shah Ji, transferred a sum of Rs 1,500 to a person connected with them.

The state counsel alleged that these persons were associated with Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and that the accused had been recording the movements of the Indian Army and collecting other confidential information, which he transmitted to the aforesaid persons through electronic means.

The accused was also alleged to have sensitive information, including details relating to Army establishments at Patiala, besides attempting, at the behest of the foreign contacts, to involve other persons in such activities.

• The accused is also said to have admitted that, apprehending his arrest, he deleted certain data from his mobile phone to destroy evidence of his communications with the said persons, though certain original photographs remained stored on his social media accounts.
• He allegedly also admitted that the information shared by him posed a serious threat to the sovereignty, integrity, unity, and security of the country. The said disclosure statement was recorded and signed by the accused and the attesting witnesses.