Travel vlogger Jyoti Malhotra challenges ‘absurd’ espionage charges in HC, seeks bail

Travel vlogger Jyoti Malhotra today moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for regular bail, asserting that branding her profession — of habitually carrying a camera and uploading travel-related content — as an act of spying was unfounded, illogical, inherently absurd and devoid of merit. Tasking up the matter, Justice Surya Partap Singh fixed January 29 for hearing the matter.

Appearing through advocate Ravinder Singh Dhull, she submitted that the very notion of a person openly using a camera and uploading travel videos on a public blog being engaged in espionage activities had no factual or legal foundation. The petition maintained that the essential ingredient constituting an offence under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act was the act of entry into a prohibited place and preparing sketches, models or other representations thereof.

It was contended that the investigating agency had not produced any material or evidence to establish that the petitioner had ever entered any prohibited place or prepared any sketch or model. The plea asserted that no such incriminating evidence was available on the police record, thereby rendering invocation of the provisions “unsustainable in law”.

It was added that the petitioner was a woman and her 68-year-old uncle was suffering from age-related ailments. She was the sole family member responsible for the care and welfare of her aged father and uncle.

The bench was also informed that the petitioner was arrested on May 17 after registration of a case on May 16 under provisions of the Official Secrets Act and BNS at the Hisar Civil Lines police station, and had been in custody since then. The court was told that a final challan had been submitted wherein no incriminating evidence had surfaced against the petitioner.

Her earlier plea for regular bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, despite the contention that even the basic ingredients of the offence were not made out, the petitioner stated. The petitioner referred to the recent conflict between India and Pakistan while submitting that the FIR was lodged to set a deterrent example by the State “to curb the truth from coming to the surface regarding false media reporting”.

She added: “The purpose of registering the FIR had already been achieved, and there was no independent voice contradicting the false media reporting and placing the State in an awkward situation.”

It was added that releasing the applicant on bail was not in any manner against the rule of law.