“A Classic Case of Honey Trap”: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Navy Apprentice Booked Under Official Secrets Act, Citing Youth, Innocence, and Entrapment
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav has granted bail to a 23-year-old applicant accused under multiple provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court observed that the applicant, who had no prior criminal record and had already been in incarceration for over 16 months, was prima facie ensnared in a honey trap orchestrated through social media by foreign intelligence agents. The court ordered the applicant's release on appropriate conditions, stating the need for caution in an era of rising cyber exploitation.
The bail application was filed by the applicant, Gaurav Arjun Patil, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2023 registered at Kalachowki Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(a)(c), 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d), and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 120-B IPC. The case was later committed to the Special Court (ATS) and numbered as Special Case (ATS) No. 142 of 2024.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant, during his apprenticeship at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai, established online contact with two absconding co-accused—identified as foreign operatives using aliases Arati Sharma and Payal Angel—via WhatsApp and Facebook. According to the investigating agency, between April–May 2023 and October 2023, the applicant shared sensitive information including names and positions of naval ships, engine drawings, and related details, allegedly in exchange for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- transferred online.
Advocate Mr. Viral Rathod, representing the applicant, contended that the entire case was based on social media chats and that the applicant had unknowingly fallen victim to a honey trap. It was argued that the applicant believed the co-accused to be employees of a shipping company and interacted with them in good faith. Furthermore, Rathod submitted that the accused promptly cooperated with investigators, surrendered his phone, and never attempted to delete or hide any data.
The State, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Ms. Hemlata Deshmukh, opposed the bail plea, asserting that the applicant compromised national security. She referred to the transmission of sensitive data related to naval vessels and submarines, which she argued could not be treated lightly. The prosecution placed reliance on precedents including State v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253), State v. Jaspal Singh Gill (AIR 1984 SC 1503), and Jasbir Singh v. State ((1984) 7 DRJ 94) to support the rejection of bail in cases involving national interest.
Amicus Curiae Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal submitted a detailed analysis of the evidence, including references to page numbers of chat transcripts and the charge sheet. He pointed out that the chats clearly showed the accused responding to unsolicited queries from the co-accused, many of which were general or refused by the applicant. He also argued that the statutory requirements of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC and intent under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act were not prima facie satisfied.
Dalal further referred to Sambhaji Lal Surve v. CBI (2009 SCC OnLine Del 755) to argue that "the success of a honey trap operation relies on manipulating human psychology and emotions," a situation clearly visible in the case at hand.
Justice Jadhav conducted a detailed examination of the statutory provisions and factual matrix. Quoting from the Official Secrets Act, the court recorded that:
"He shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend... to fourteen years... in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station..."
However, the court noted that it was crucial to evaluate the presence of mens rea and voluntariness in the applicant's conduct. It was observed:
"It is crucial to note that it is the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who struck an acquaintance with Applicant through social media platforms by sending him a friend request which he accepted."
The court further noted that: "Applicant has shared names of certain ships docked at the harbour / dockyard and weather conditions... the Applicant has innocently responded to her by providing her the names of the ships."
Regarding the monetary aspect, the court recorded: "Alleging receipt of Rs.2,000/- as consideration for quid pro quo to supply the alleged information would once again be the subject matter of trial."
Referring to John Fernandes v. State of Goa and P. Chidambaram v. CBI, the court underscored the legal parameters for granting bail, including:
- The gravity of the offence
- Nature and quality of evidence
- Character and background of the accused
- Possibility of tampering with evidence
- Duration of incarceration without trial
The court recorded:
"The Applicant has been incarcerated since 13.12.2023 i.e. for almost 16 months. Charge is yet to be framed and trial is yet to commence."
Most notably, the court remarked on the use of honey traps as a growing cyber threat:
"Prima facie in the present case, the Accused No.2 shared her photographs with the Applicant at the inception in May 2023... The present case is a classic case of honey trap which today's youth should be beware of."
In view of the above findings, the Court directed as follows:
The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
Before his actual release from jail, the applicant shall furnish an affidavit or undertaking disclosing the address where he proposes to reside post-release, along with details of the person(s) he intends to stay with. This information, including contact numbers, shall be submitted to the concerned police station and to the trial court. This arrangement shall remain in effect until the completion of the trial.
After his release from jail, the applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
The applicant shall mark his presence before the trial court on the first Saturday of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. In case the first Saturday happens to be a holiday or a non-working day for the court, he shall mark his attendance on the next working day.
The applicant shall cooperate fully with the conduct of the trial and shall attend all scheduled hearings of the trial court unless specifically exempted. He shall refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct may entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of this bail order.
The applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission from the trial court. He is also directed to deposit his passport, if any, with the trial court within two weeks from the date of his release from prison.
The applicant shall not influence any witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
In case of any violation of the above conditions and/or two consecutive defaults in marking his presence before the trial court, the provisions of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be attracted, enabling the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail
"It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting Bail only. They shall not be construed as observations on merit. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of evidence led by parties and strictly on evidence being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein above in this order."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant: Mr. Viral Rathod a/w Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav
For the Respondent: Ms. Hemlata Deshmukh, SPP
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal
Case Title: Gaurav Arjun Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:16928
Case Number: Criminal Bail Application No. 2893 of 2024
Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
[Read/Download order]
