IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA, J.
Mohammad Saber - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 86 of 2023
Decided On : 25-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on the allegations and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. discussion on the law in relation to the case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. judicial reasoning on the application of section 436a of the crpc. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. final decision on bail and its conditions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Amit Sharma, J.
This is the second application under Section 439 read with Section 436A of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 166/2015, dated 16.11.2015., under Sections 3 and 9 of the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT , 1923, registered at P.S. Crime Branch. The first application filed on behalf of the present applicant (BAIL APPLN. 1625/2017) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.02.2018. passed by a coordinate bench of this Court, with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as alleged in the chargesheet are as under:
ii. The mobile numbers involved were intercepted and based on important intercepts, names of two persons involved - Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed were surfaced. Kafaitullah Khan was based in Rajouri District of Jammu & Kashmir and Abdul Rasheed served in the BSF. It was revealed that Abdul Rasheed passed on secret information to Kafaitullah Khan in lieu of money, who then passed on the same to Pakistan intelligence operatives.
iii. Based on the said information, the present FIR was registered against both Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed under Sections 3 and 9 of the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT , 1923.
iv. During the course of investigation, information was received that Kafaitullah Khan was planning to travel somewhere from Manjakote and was going to Bhopal from Jammu via Delhi by the Malwa Express train. Based on the said information, Kafaitullah Khan was apprehended on 25.11.2015. at New Delhi Railway Station. During the search of his person, sensitive documents relating to Army were recovered. He was interrogated at the office of ISC, Crime Branch and he admitted to spying for Pakistan and also revealed the involvement of some security personnel. The mobile phone that he used for communicating with his associates was also recovered. His passport having details of his travel to Pakistan, alongwith a letter of recommendation from ‘Jammu Kashmir Freedom Movement Organisation’ requesting the Pakistan High Commission to issue a visa was also recovered. During interrogation, he revealed that he was working at the instance of one Faizal-ur-Rehman. He was formally arrested in the case on 26.11.2015..
v. During his interrogation, he revealed that he was contacted by Faizalur-Rehman, who was a Pakistan intelligence operative, who asked him to work for Pakistan intelligence. Faizal-ur-Rehman had asked him to contact retired defence personnel and introduced them to the former. He revealed that in lieu of the work, Faizal-ur-Rehman had promised him to pay a handsome sum of money. Faizal-ur-Rehman had contacted Kafaitullah Khan on his mobile phone and asked to speak with some ex-servicemen, to which the latter replied that he was still trying to get in touch with them.
vi. In the market, Kafaitullah Khan came across his close friend Mohamma
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
S. Kasi v. State through Inspector of Police
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar
Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Bail granted - Clause (b) of section 21(4) of MCOC Act it becomes evident that it contains an interdict against grant of bail unless Court sa....
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 allows for bail under Section 436A of the CrPC if the accused has served more than half of the maximum sentence for the offence charged.
(1) Statutory restriction like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not operate as an impediment on powers of Constitutional Court to grant bail, if a case of infringement of constitutional guarantee ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.