Bombay High Court: The present application was filed under Section 4391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered with Kalachowki Police Station for offences under Sections 3(1)(a)(c), 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d) and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (‘the 1923 Act’) read with Section 120-B2 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., opined that it was prima facie evident that the applicant was honey trapped in sharing sensitive and confidential information of ships and boats which were docked in the Naval Dockyard. The Court granted bail to the applicant and opined that he was at the threshold of his career and adult life having an excellent academic background, therefore, subjecting him to further custody would make it highly likely that he would be entangled in the vicious cycle and downward spiral of criminality making him a hardened criminal posing a future perpetual threat to society.
Background
Applicant completed his Certificate Course in Mechanic Diesel from Industrial Training Institute, Jalgaon recognised by the National Council for Vocational Training. Applicant cleared the All-India Trade Test for Apprentices in December 2023 pursuant to completion of his apprenticeship of one year in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, and he was boarded at the Naval Dockyard Hostel premises in the restricted Naval Dockyard area.
During April/May 2023 to October 2023, the applicant got acquainted with Accused 2 and Accused 3, on social media platforms, like WhatsApp and Facebook and started chatting with them. It was stated that Accused 2 and 3 represented themselves as they were employed in a shipping company and developed acquaintance and friendship with the applicant and during their regular and repeatedly consistent chats induced and lured the applicant to provide information in respect of ships which were docked in the Naval Dockyard area for repairs, location of boats and ships, engine drawings, information about submarines docked in the Naval Dockyard for repairs which information was confidential and sensitive in nature.
It was alleged that the applicant accepted Rs 2,000 from Accused 3 online for providing the information which was the alleged money trail. On investigation, Accused 2 and 3 revealed to be Pakistani Intelligence Officers/Agents according to the destination of their IP Addresses from where they were communicating with the applicant. The applicant submitted that if the WhatsApp and Facebook chats were seen it would be prima facie evident that the applicant was completely innocent rather he was honey-trapped by Accused 2 and 3. In relation to Rs 2000 taken by the applicant, it was submitted the said money was received by the applicant due to an exigency and he immediately volunteered to return the money to Accused 2 on receiving his stipend/salary in the following month.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation, rather each and every message communicated via Whatsapp and Facebook between him and Accused 2 and 3 was retrieved on the applicant’s participation in the investigation. The Court opined that the applicant could very well have deleted the Whatsapp and Facebook messages exchanged with the other co-accused persons but nothing of that sort was done by him, neither there was anything on record to show that he had deleted any data and infact the chat with Accused 2 on Whatsapp was archived. Similarly, the Facebook chat messages with Accused 3 were also shared by him fully with the prosecution agency.
The Court noted that the applicant shared names of certain ships docked at the harbour/dockyard and weather conditions with Accused 2 when she made him believe that she was working for a shipping company in Dubai and was interested in knowing which ships were docked at the port for repairs on those dates and the applicant innocently responded to her by providing her with the names of the ships. Thereafter, when Accused 2 asked him to provide information about the presence of a submarine at the Dockyard, the applicant flatly refused and did not provide the said information. Accused 2 even attempted to lure the applicant with a job offer in a shipping company after his apprenticeship which he flatly refused. The Court noted that there was no monetary consideration involved in the entirety of the Whatsapp chats with Accused 2.
In relation to the communication with Accused 3 was concerned, the Court noted that she portrayed herself to be employed with a global shipping and logistics LLC company based in the UAE and having its branch in Tamil Nadu, India. The applicant interacted about information about ship movement and servicing of engines and about his financial situation relating to his study, course and expenditure, upon which she offered him money. The monetary consideration of Rs 2,000 was received by the applicant from Accused 4 to which he had responded about returning the same once his monthly stipend for the next month was remitted in his bank account.
The Court noted that the applicant addressed a message on Facebook to Accused 3 stating that he would log out from his Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and all social media apps/accounts which was preceded by the exchange of messages that he was punished for violating the rules as he had been spotted by the OIAC in the restricted Naval Dockyard Area, pursuant to which he had logged out.
The Court noted that the applicant was no longer in service of the Indian Navy in any capacity and his phone and laptop was already seized therefore, the evidence retrieved could not be tampered with. The Court stated that there was no likelihood of him repeating the offence and since he had no access to information, the interest of the State would not be at risk. Further, he had no prior criminal history to his discredit, thus, there was no apprehension of him threatening or tampering with the witnesses; and the presence of the accused could be secured at the time of trial, and it was unlikely that he would abscond. The Court opined that the accused was a 23-year-old student, and it was prima facie evident that he was honey trapped.
The Court stated that whether the alleged information was certified as classified, secret, and confidential would be a question of trial. The Court noted that the applicant was incarcerated since 13-12-2023 and opined that the ignominy of the applicant suffering incarceration in prison pending trial was clear and that too for an uncertain period.
The Court opined that “honey trap is a covert technique used in intelligence operations which involves use of seduction or sexual appeal to extract information, gain leverage or manipulate individuals for various purposes”. The Court opined that honey trap was more insidious and involved a long-term deception which was prima facie, seen to have been attempted by Accused 2 and 3 in the present case with the applicant over 3-4 months. The Court noted that Accused 2 shared her photographs with the applicant at the inception in May 2023 which were commented, on by the applicant as “beautiful” and “savvy” and this was the first step of striking acquaintance with the applicant.
The Court opined that a honey trapper might use charm, attractiveness, or emotional connection to extract sensitive information from the target or even coerce the target into doing specific actions. The success of a honey trap operation relies on manipulating human psychology and emotions wherein the target might feel a strong emotional bond making it difficult for him to question the motive behind the relationship and such emotional entanglement could cloud his judgement leading the target to divulge in confidential information or engage in compromising activities.
The Court stated that the applicant’s academic credentials and future prospects would persuade this Court to consider his case for a grant of bail and further, he had no antecedents. The Court opined that the applicant was at the threshold of his career and adult life having an excellent academic background, hence at this stage subjecting him to further custody would make it highly likely that he would be entangled in the vicious cycle and downward spiral of criminality making him a hardened criminal posing a future perpetual threat to society. Thus, the Court released the applicant on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs 25,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount
[Gaurav Arjun Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No. 2893 of 2024, decided on 15-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Viral Rathod a/w Vishwatej Jadhav, Advocates for Applicant.
For the Respondent: Hemlata Deshmukh, SPP for Respondent — State; Dormaan J. Dalal, Amicus Curiae.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Corresponding Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
