Introduction:

In the matter of Dipak Kishorbhai Salunke v. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment refusing bail to the applicant accused of spying for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by sharing sensitive information about Indian Army movements to an alleged ISI operative who posed as a woman named Poonam Sharma on Facebook, holding that the gravity of charges involving national security overrides considerations of personal liberty and highlighting the potential nationwide implications of the alleged espionage activities. The applicant, Deepak Salunkhe, arrested under FIR registered in 2022 and charged under IPC Sections 121(A) for conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India and 120(B) for criminal conspiracy, approached the High Court seeking bail on the ground that the trial was delayed and asserting that he was innocent of the allegations, but Justice Hasmukh D Suthar rejected the plea, emphasizing that intelligence inputs and material gathered during investigation demonstrated the applicant’s prima facie involvement in a conspiracy with ISI agents that posed a grave threat to India’s unity, integrity, and security, as evidenced by his established contacts with one Hamid, a Pakistani citizen operating under the fake Facebook profile of Poonam Sharma, through which he allegedly shared highly confidential details regarding border areas, troop movements, and photographs of Indian Army assets, which were later confirmed by the Army to be classified and not publicly available, with the court observing that this information exchange took place in exchange for hawala payments.

Arguments:

In support of his bail plea, Salunkhe’s counsel argued that he was languishing in custody due to delays in trial proceedings, asserting that prolonged detention without conclusion of trial violated his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and further claimed that the allegations lacked direct evidence of intent to harm India’s sovereignty, as there was no evidence of actual use of the shared information in attacks. The defense argued that since Salunkhe is a small-time civilian with no prior criminal record, his continued detention was disproportionate, and that bail should be granted with stringent conditions to ensure his presence during trial.

Conversely, the prosecution, led by the state, strenuously opposed the application, submitting that Salunkhe was caught red-handed with incriminating digital evidence retrieved from his mobile phone, including Facebook and WhatsApp chats with Hamid, where sensitive military information was discussed, along with photographs of Army vehicles and border infrastructure, and further highlighted that financial trails showed transactions indicating receipt of funds via hawala channels, which established a clear pattern of espionage motivated by monetary gain. The state argued that granting bail to the applicant would seriously hamper the ongoing investigation against other potential conspirators, risk evidence tampering, and could embolden further espionage efforts by foreign intelligence agencies targeting India’s defense installations, especially considering intelligence reports suggesting a larger conspiracy by ISI agents to gather and exploit confidential military data through unsuspecting or complicit Indian nationals. In a detailed order, Justice Suthar observed that espionage undermines national security and any leniency could have a chilling effect on national defense preparedness, noting that following the alleged exchange of sensitive information, incidents of drone attacks and other hostile activities were carried out by Pakistan along the border, indicating a potential link between the leaked information and subsequent security breaches, thereby making it imperative for courts to treat such matters with utmost seriousness.

Judgement:

The court held that while the right to liberty is a sacrosanct constitutional guarantee, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the larger interests of national security, observing that in cases involving charges with severe punishment like waging war against the state, discretion to grant bail must be exercised sparingly and only when no prima facie case is established. The court emphasized that the applicant’s involvement appeared prima facie clear from material collected by investigating agencies, including confirmed communications with an ISI agent, receipt of funds, and possession of secret information, which cumulatively demonstrated the applicant’s knowing participation in a conspiracy against the nation. Rejecting the defense plea that mere delay in trial justifies bail, the court held that in cases of serious offenses with grave consequences for society, delay alone cannot override the imperatives of ensuring justice and national security, although the bench directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings in light of prolonged custody. The judgment noted that espionage activities are designed to destabilize nations, compromise security, and endanger lives of soldiers and civilians, requiring courts to prioritize collective safety over individual liberty when a clear threat is posed. In conclusion, the High Court ruled that enlarging Salunkhe on bail would not only risk destruction or concealment of evidence but also impede the prospects of uncovering the entire conspiracy involving other unidentified agents or facilitators working with ISI, making it essential for the integrity of the ongoing investigation that the applicant remains in judicial custody. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application while ensuring the trial court proceeds with the case expeditiously so that the matter is adjudicated without unnecessary delay, thereby balancing the applicant’s right to speedy trial with the paramount interest of safeguarding the nation from espionage threats.