The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group!

Bail Denied to Indian Citizen with Pakistani Roots: Court Cites Active Role in Espionage Attempt

04 September 2024 10:04 AM

By: sayum


The Gujarat High Court has denied bail to Labhshankar Duryodhan Maheshwari, an Indian citizen of Pakistani origin, accused of involvement in a case concerning the illegal transfer of sensitive information to Pakistan. The judgment, delivered by Justice M.R. Mengdey, highlights the gravity of the allegations under Sections 121A, 123, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside offenses under the Information Technology Act, underscoring national security concerns.

Maheshwari, initially a Pakistani citizen, had relinquished his citizenship and acquired Indian citizenship. He was implicated in a case linked to the transmission of a SIM card to Pakistan, which was used to activate a WhatsApp account allegedly intended for espionage activities. The case unfolded when an Indian Air Force officer stationed in Kargil received a suspicious WhatsApp message asking him to download an APK file containing malware. Investigations revealed the SIM card involved was procured by an associate in Jamnagar and later handed over to Maheshwari, who facilitated its transport to Pakistan via his sister.

The court emphasized the severe nature of the allegations against Maheshwari. The prosecution argued that the SIM card, after being used to activate a WhatsApp account in Pakistan, was instrumental in attempting to extract sensitive information related to the Indian armed forces through malware. Justice Mengdey underscored the potential threat to national security, stating that the acts attributed to the applicant could have serious repercussions for the country's defense infrastructure.

Justice Mengdey observed that Maheshwari's involvement went beyond mere possession of the SIM card. His actions, including obtaining the One-Time Password (OTP) necessary to activate the WhatsApp account and communicating this to his counterparts in Pakistan, demonstrated active participation in the alleged espionage activities. The court noted that the applicant's prior citizenship and roots in Pakistan added a layer of complexity to the case, further justifying the denial of bail.

The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, which emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. However, Justice Mengdey noted that the seriousness of the charges and the potential threat to national security necessitated a departure from this principle. The court asserted that granting bail in such circumstances would not align with the judicial responsibility to safeguard national interests.

The Gujarat High Court's decision to deny bail to Labhshankar Duryodhan Maheshwari underscores the judiciary's stance on cases involving national security, particularly those with elements of cross-border communication and espionage. The judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent legal standards applied in cases where the security of the nation is at stake, reaffirming the importance of thorough judicial scrutiny in matters of this nature.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2024

 Labhshankar Duryodhan Maheshwari v. State of Gujarat

Similar News