Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Natarajan, J.
Jeetendar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1691/2022
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Bail - Official Secrets Act - IPC - CrPC - [Sections 120(B), 201 of IPC, 3, 6, 9 of Official Secrets Act] - The court discussed the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, particularly focusing on Section 3 and Section 13(3), and their implications in the case. The court highlighted the seriousness of the offense and the potential threat to national security posed by the accused's actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.1, filed a bail petition under Section 439 of CrPC for offenses under Sections 120(B), 201 of IPC, and Sections 3, 6, 9 of the Official Secrets Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, posing as an Army man, shared sensitive information with individuals in Pakistan, leading to his arrest and subsequent remand to judicial custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had shared sensitive information with individuals in Pakistan, posing a serious threat to national security. The court also noted the seriousness of the offense and the potential for the accused to abscond or commit similar offenses if granted bail.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged sharing of sensitive information with individuals in Pakistan, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential threat to national security.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the seriousness of the offense, the potential threat to national security, and the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, particularly Section 3 and Section 13(3), which restrict the grant of bail in such cases.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the accused No.1 for bail was dismissed by the court.
ORDER
1. This petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for granting bail in Crime No.149/2021 registered by the Cottonpet Police for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B) and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for short) and under Sections 3, 6, 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by one Police Inspector Shivaprasad of CCB Police on 19.09.2021 alleging that the petitioner said to be projected himself as Army man and in conspiracy with the accused No.2 and accused No.3 who belongs to Pakistan, he has provided the information to the accused No.2 through Whatsapp and other social media by taking photographs of the important places like Naval Base Army area and other important places to Pakistan ISI people who is at Karachi, Pakistan. Therefore, the petitioner said to have committed the offences under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Based upon this information, the police arrested the petitioner on 19.11.2021 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The ACP of Anti Terrorist Cell and CCB wing took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. The bail petition of this petitioner came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge. Hence, he is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated. He came in contact with one lady through social media and started chatting with her. In order to get her love and affection, the petitioner worn the Indian Military uniform and used to chat with Pooja who is from Pakistan. Except using uniform and sharing some photographs, there is no incriminating material against the petitioner to show he has sent any information to the Pakistani. He has been in custody more than seven months. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The punishment for the alleged offences is maximum three years imprisonment. Learned counsel also contended that as per Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the police have no authority to file complaint and there is a bar for taking cognizance. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that the accused defrauding himself as an Army man, sent official secrets of the India including the Army, Naval and Air force. He has sent various photographs to accused Nos.2 and 3 who are from Pakistan. The police traced the documents and the messages which clearly reveal that he has sent various secret information to Pakistani. There were two cell phones used by the petitioner/accused, out of which, one cell phone is recovered by the police and another cell phone is already destroyed by the petitioner and they unable to retrieve the information sent by the petitioner. The offence is very serious one. The petitioner not only given information about Army details, base camps, pokran etc. to the lady who is an ISI agent of Pakistan. Therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may commit similar offence or abscond from the case is not ruled out. She also contended that the Army Officer was given instruction to the complainant to file complaint and for official reason, the name of the complainant is not disclosed in the complaint. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Terrorist Cell, Bengaluru has investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, on the technical ground, the Court cannot grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent, perused the records.
7. Admittedly,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the seriousness of offenses under the Official Secrets Act, particularly in relation to sharing sensitive information with individuals in a foreign....
Cognizance under the Official Secrets Act requires approval from the appropriate government, and failure to obtain such approval renders the charges without authority of law.
Amendment in Section 45 by the Finance Act 2018 is only with respect to substituting the term ‘offence punishable for 3 years’ with ‘offence under this Act.
UA(P) Act - Grant or release on bail to an accused person, is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally postulates that, if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reas....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
