Bombay High Court warns youth of honey traps, grants bail to naval apprentice in spying case

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday flagged the rising threat of 'honey trap' targeting vulnerable youth on social media [Gaurav Arjun Patil v State of Maharashtra]. .Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav sounded the note of caution while granting bail to 23-year-old Gaurav Arjun Patil, a former Naval Dockyard apprentice accused of sharing sensitive information with alleged Pakistani intelligence agents.“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...it is the duty of the Court to sound an alarm bell to the youth of the country and to the society at large to beware of the warning signs of Honey trapping which is initiated through unsolicited communication from someone you don’t know or haven’t previously interacted with as is the present case," the Court said. .The Court said that the youth who are hooked to social media should be cautious when they receive overly complimentary communication from unknown persons."A lot of cyber-crimes and extortion related offences are happening nowadays by using the same modus operandi. The citizens of this country and more specifically the youth who are hooked onto the social media platforms must be alert particularly if a message they receive on social media is flattering or overly complimentary from an unsolicited communication or a person unknown as it may be a sign of honey trapping. The present case is a classic case of honey trap which today’s youth should be beware of,” he judge stated..The case against Patil stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) registered in December 2023, alleging that between April and October 2023, he exchanged ship-related information with two women. They were later identified as Pakistani intelligence agents operating under false identities. He reportedly met them through Facebook and WhatsApp, where they posed as employees in international shipping firms.The prosecution alleged that Patil, then a diesel mechanic apprentice at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai, shared details about docked ships, an engine diagram, and weather conditions — all while receiving ₹2,000 via bank transfer. The co-accused absconded. A fourth person, from whose account the money was sent, was dropped from the chargesheet due to lack of evidence..Patil’s lawyer argued that his client was “honey-trapped” and deceived by the operatives, with no malicious intent. He pointed to chat records showing how Patil had refused to share certain information, even telling the accused to Google it and repeatedly offered to return the money. The Amicus Curiae, appointed to assist the Court, also emphasised that Patil had no prior record, had fully cooperated with the investigation and the charge of criminal conspiracy was a matter for trial..The State opposed the bail, arguing that sharing of any confidential naval information was a serious national security breach, and that even a nominal financial transaction like ₹2,000, pointed to culpability.After hearing both parties, the Court found several factors in Patil’s favor. He had voluntarily handed over his phone without deleting data, had no prior criminal record and was no longer in a position to access sensitive information. Justice Jadhav noted that the chats showed emotional grooming, not intent to commit espionage.The Court noted that Patil's initial interactions with the two women were carefully crafted to develop a sense of friendship with him, rather than appearing overtly manipulative, and were designed to avoid raising any suspicion. It appeared, prima facie, that the applicant fell victim to this strategy."Such relationship is built on the foundation of trust and intimacy exploiting the target’s vulnerability and desires which is prima facie seen from the WhatsApp and Facebook chats in the present case,” it added..The Court also underscored the need for a reformative rather than punitive approach, particularly in cases involving young offenders. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court stressed that incarceration should not become a path to criminality for first-time offenders.While granting bail, the Court imposed strict conditions, including a bail bond of ₹25,000 bond, regular reporting to authorities and monthly appearance before the trial court. .Advocate Viral Rathod along with advocate Vishwatej Jadhav appeared for Patil.Special Public Prosecutor Hemlata Deshmukh appeared for the State.Advocate Dormaan J Dalal acted as the Amicus Curiae.