In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary's zero-tolerance stance towards national security breaches, the Gujarat High Court has denied bail to an accused, Deepak Kishorbhai Salunke, who stands charged with leaking sensitive military information to a suspected agent of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The allegations against Salunke pertain to acts of espionage carried out using digital platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, where he allegedly shared photographs and details of Indian Army installations and troop movements in border areas. The individual who received this data, as claimed by investigating authorities, operated under the guise of a woman named "Poonam Sharma," a fabricated identity created for intelligence-gathering and manipulation. The court, after examining the gravity of the charges and the national implications of the alleged offense, declined to grant Salunke bail, emphasizing that matters involving state security and espionage demand stringent judicial oversight and cannot be approached with leniency, even at the stage of investigation.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, who presided over the matter, observed that the nature of the accusations warranted the highest degree of caution. He noted that leaking any information pertaining to army deployment, locations, movements, or border infrastructure—even if done through seemingly simple means such as forwarding messages or photos over social media—can cause serious and potentially irreversible harm to India’s national security. The judge firmly stated that the acts allegedly committed by the accused, even if done for monetary benefit, cannot be treated lightly. The deliberate engagement with foreign elements, the calculated transmission of army-related data, and the receiving of payments in return all point to premeditated actions that fall squarely within the framework of espionage under Indian law. The court emphasized that such conduct threatens the sovereignty and integrity of the nation and must be treated as an exceptional crime, where the right to bail cannot be presumed or liberally interpreted.
The facts presented by the prosecution reveal a disturbing and methodically executed operation. Salunke, according to investigative agencies, was in contact with an individual who presented herself as "Poonam Sharma" on Facebook. This social media profile, it has been argued, was a fraudulent digital identity operated by an agent of the Pakistani intelligence services. Through friendly and persuasive conversations that reportedly included emotional and romantic manipulation, this handler allegedly convinced Salunke to provide information about the Indian Army's deployment in border areas of Gujarat and Rajasthan. The accused is said to have taken photographs of army convoys, bases, and other restricted locations and transmitted them through WhatsApp. These exchanges were accompanied by financial transactions, which were traced to the accused’s bank account, thereby suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement. The financial trail, according to the state counsel, clearly indicates that the accused was not an unsuspecting pawn, but rather a willing participant who was compensated for his role in transferring sensitive defense data.
The state strongly opposed the bail application, presenting evidence that suggested that Salunke’s acts were not isolated but formed part of a wider pattern of espionage. The investigation is said to have unearthed other links, including the procurement of mobile SIM cards for the handler, which would allow the foreign agent to operate more discreetly within Indian digital infrastructure. The prosecution also highlighted the potential impact of the leaked data, noting that troop positions, schedules, and photographic data of Indian military infrastructure are of great value to hostile agencies, particularly in times of heightened geopolitical tension. It was argued that granting bail at this crucial juncture would not only disrupt the ongoing investigation but also send a dangerous message that such crimes can be dealt with in a routine manner.
Justice Suthar, while considering the arguments, cited the principles that apply in cases involving national security. He stressed that bail is a right but not an absolute one, especially when the nature of the offense involves a betrayal of the nation’s trust and a compromise of its defense systems. The court reiterated that individual liberty must be weighed against the collective interest and the security of the state. In matters such as espionage, the repercussions of the crime extend far beyond the individual accused—they touch upon the safety of soldiers, the preparedness of the military, and the strategic operations of the government. The court observed that in such cases, it is not merely the act of passing information that constitutes the offense, but the potential for that information to be used to harm national interests, and thus, even preliminary acts of cooperation with enemy agents must be treated with the utmost severity.
One of the critical points considered by the court was the method employed by the alleged ISI handler. The use of a female identity on social media, especially platforms like Facebook, points to a deliberate psychological tactic designed to exploit emotional vulnerability for intelligence-gathering. This phenomenon, often termed "honey trapping," is increasingly being seen in espionage cases across the country. The handler, under the persona of Poonam Sharma, is believed to have engaged the accused in conversations that appeared personal and emotional, thereby gaining his trust and compelling him to share information that he may not have otherwise considered passing on. The court noted that this method of psychological manipulation, especially when tied to financial inducement, shows the increasingly sophisticated and layered tactics used by foreign agencies to exploit Indian citizens.
The defense had argued that the accused was an ordinary man with no criminal record and limited understanding of the national security ramifications of his actions. They claimed that Salunke was lured and manipulated by the handler and that his intent was not to harm the country but to engage in a private relationship that eventually involved money and minor acts of information sharing. However, the court found this line of defense unconvincing. It held that even if the accused was emotionally manipulated, his actions—particularly those involving financial transactions and repeated communication with a foreign agent—showed that he had enough knowledge and opportunity to cease such conduct. His continued engagement with the handler, despite the clear military nature of the information shared, pointed to a culpable mindset.
Justice Suthar also referred to the broader pattern of such cases being reported in recent times and the need for the judiciary to adopt a vigilant approach. The judgment highlighted that the traditional modes of espionage—such as physical infiltration—have now been replaced or at least supplemented by digital operations, where social media plays a critical role. In this context, the court remarked that what might appear as casual online communication could, in fact, be the channel for serious and structured intelligence gathering. The court also expressed concern over the use of online platforms by hostile nations to map military installations, study army routines, and analyze regional troop strength, all of which are made easier when insiders provide photographs or information in real time.
Another important factor that weighed against granting bail was the potential impact on the ongoing investigation. The court observed that releasing Salunke at this stage could compromise not just the current case but also the broader intelligence-gathering efforts aimed at identifying and dismantling the network of which he was allegedly a part. The police and intelligence agencies, the court noted, need uninterrupted access to the accused to further interrogate and possibly uncover other operatives, both domestic and foreign, who may be using similar tactics to obtain strategic information from unsuspecting or complicit individuals.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the nature of the offense, the evidence presented, and the potential for national harm were all compelling enough to deny bail. It observed that the charges under the Official Secrets Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy and communication with enemy agents are serious and merit a custodial investigation. The judgment reaffirmed that while courts are bound to protect the personal freedoms of individuals, such freedoms cannot override the necessity of maintaining the sanctity and secrecy of military operations.
The Salunke case stands as a crucial example of how social media, if misused, can become a potent tool in the hands of enemy agents and how even seemingly minor acts—like forwarding a photo or chatting with a stranger—can spiral into national security violations. It brings to light the urgent need for digital awareness, especially among citizens living in sensitive areas or with access to strategic information. It also reaffirms the duty of the judiciary to act decisively in preventing threats to national integrity, even if that means restricting personal liberty temporarily.
In this evolving age of digital warfare and remote intelligence operations, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court serves as both a legal precedent and a national warning. The intersection of emotional manipulation, digital communication, and military secrets has created a new form of espionage that requires constant vigilance, robust legal frameworks, and, as seen in this case, a judiciary that places national interest above all else. By denying bail, the court has not only upheld the law but has also reinforced the message that betrayal of the nation, regardless of the medium used, will be met with strict and unforgiving judicial response.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.