Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Gaurav Arjun Patil - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 2893 of 2024
Decided on : 15-04-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Sections 3(1)(a)(c), 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d), and 9 - Application for bail by accused charged with espionage-related offences - Accused, a young apprentice, alleged to have shared sensitive information with foreign agents - Court considered the nature of the offence, the character of the accused, and the circumstances leading to the alleged crime. (Paras 1, 10, 20, 27)
(B) Bail - Considerations for grant - The court must weigh the gravity of the offence, nature of evidence, and the character of the accused, especially when the accused is a young offender with no prior criminal history. (Paras 10, 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a 23-year-old apprentice, was arrested for allegedly sharing sensitive naval information with individuals posing as friends on social media, who were later identified as foreign agents. He has been incarcerated for over 16 months pending trial. (Paras 2, 5, 20)
Findings of Court:
The applicant's cooperation with the investigation and the nature of the information shared were considered. The court found that the applicant was likely a victim of a honey trap and that further incarceration could harm his future prospects. (Paras 20, 21, 27)
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant knowingly shared classified information and the implications of his young age on the decision for bail. (Paras 10, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a reformative approach in dealing with young offenders, suggesting that incarceration could lead to a cycle of criminality. (Paras 20, 26)
Result: Bail application allowed with conditions imposed. (Para 30)
JUDGEMENT:
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
1. Heard Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Deshmukh, learned SPP for Respondent – State and Mr. Dalal, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court.
2. Present Application is filed by Applicant – Gaurav Arjun Patil under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking regular bail in connection with First Information Report (for short “FIR”) No.08 of 2023 registered with Kalachowki Police Station for offences under Sections 3(1)(a)(c), 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d) and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short “the said Act”) readwith Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). Investigation in the matter is completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the Sessions Court, Thane which has culminated into Special Case (ATS) No.142 of 2024. There are total 4 Accused persons arraigned in the crime. Applicant before me is arraigned as Accused No.1 and is incarcerated since 13.12.2023. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are shown as absconding accused. Accused No.4 is a 25 year old woman hailing from Kaliyaganj, West Bengal, a mobile smart card seller and crypto currency trader who transferred Rs.2,000/- online to the Applicant at the behest of Accused No.3. Accused No.4 after being arrested initially is however dropped from the charge-sheet for want of evidence under Section 169 of Cr.P.C.
3. By order dated 13.03.2025 this Court appointed Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal, Advocate practicing at the bar as Amicus Curiae to aid and assist the Court in the present matter.
4. Applicant before me is a 23 year old young offender on the threshold of his life and career with an excellent academic record but having found himself on the wrong-side of the law. Educational qualification of Applicant is that he completed his Certificate Course in Mechanic Diesel from Industrial Training Institute (“ITI”), Jalgaon ITI recognised by National Council for Vocational Training (“NCVT”). Applicant cleared the All India Trade Test for Apprentices in December 2023 with a score of 72.75% pursuant to completion of his apprenticeship of one year in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai from 21.11.2022 to 20.11.2023. During his apprenticeship he received Rs.7,000/- per month as stipend and he was boarded at the Naval Dockyard Hostel premises in the restricted Naval Dockyard area. Applicant hails from Taluka Pachora District Jalgaon.
5. According to prosecution, period during which alleged offence was committed is from May 2023 to October 2023. Briefly stated, on 13.10.2023 prosecution received intelligence input information from ATS, Thane Unit about the alleged offence. Investigation was carried out. FIR was lodged on 12.12.2023 which is appended at page No.14 of the Application. Applicant was arrested on 13.12.2023 and is in incarceration since then for the past almost 1 year and 4 months. Previous Bail Application of Applicant was rejected by the Special Court 24.05.2024 and hence Applicant is before this Court seeking bail.
6. Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant would submit that it is the prosecution case that during the period between April – May 2023 to October 2023, Applicant got acquainted with Accused No.2 – Arati Sharma and Accused No.3 – Payal Angel, the absconding accused persons on social media platforms Whatsapp and Facebook separately and started chatting with them. He would submit that Accused Nos.2 and 3 represented to Applicant that they both were employed in a shipping company and developed acquaintance and friendship with him and during the course of their regular and repeatedly consistent chats on Whatsapp and Facebook induced and lured the Applicant to provide information in respect of ships which were docked in the Naval Dockyard area for repairs, location of boats and ships, engine drawings, information about submarines docked in the Naval Dockyard for repairs which information was confidential and sensitive in nature. He would submit that according to prosecution c
The court emphasized the need for a reformative approach in dealing with young offenders, considering their potential for rehabilitation over punitive measures.
The court emphasized the need for rehabilitation over punishment for young offenders, considering their age and circumstances in bail decisions.
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for young offenders, allowing bail to promote education and prevent recidivism.
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for young offenders, allowing bail based on the applicant's age, educational background, and circumstances of the incident.
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for young offenders, allowing bail based on the Applicant's age and circumstances surrounding the incident.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need for a balanced approach in serious offences against minors.
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
