IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the absence of incriminating evidence and prolonged detention without trial are critical factors in granting bail.

JUDGMENT :

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that pursuant to receipt of secret information by the police on 14.10.2021 to the effect that the petitioner, who was serving Indian Army as a Sepoy, had been leaking sensitive secret information to Pakistan in lieu of illegal gratification, a raid was conducted at his house in Village Korwa Khurd, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala and he was apprehend. It is further the case of prosecution that two mobile phones were recovered from the petitioner. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation it transpired that illegal gratification had been passed on to petitioner’s father and had been credited in his bank account.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is no evidence worth credence to show that he had been passing on any kind of information to Pakistan or to anybody else much less for any kind of gratification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after examining the mobile phones, no incriminating information could be gathered against accused. It has further been submitted that alleged illegal gratification stated to have been credited in the bank account of petitioner’s father is barely to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and that there is nothing on record to show that the same had been deposited by anybody having links with Pakistan.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, the call details were scrutinized, copies whereof have been annexed with the reply filed by State on the last date of hearing. It has been submitted that the petitioner was regularly in touch with one Shruti Parry, who was infact operating from Pakistan and was also having facebook account by the same name. Learned State counsel further informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 2½ years and that he is not involved in any other case. It has also been informed that challan was presented in December, 2021 and that charges already stand framed. It has also been informed that as on date only 1 PW out of cited 15 PWs has been examined.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 27.5.2024, learned State counsel had informed that although nothing incriminating could be found upon scrutinizing the call-details, but the data recovered from the mobile phones, which is to the tune of 48 GB, was yet to be scrutinized. Consequently, this Court had directed the State to take necessary steps in this regard. The operative part of the said order reads as under:

“While learned State counsel has informed that upon scrutinizing the said call-details record, nothing incriminating could be found, but has requested for an adjournment on the ground that the data recovered from the said mobile phones is to the tune of 48 GB and that the same is yet to be scrutinized. Learned State counsel has informed that while 2 recovered mobile phones were sent to FSL in the year 2021 itself but it is only now i.e. on 24.5.2024 that the FSL has transmitted the said data (48 GB). It has been submitted that scrutinizing such voluminous digital data is likely to consume time. Learned State counsel has thus requested for one month adjournment.

This Court has considered the aforesaid request made on behalf of learned State counsel. While it goes without saying that scrutinizing of 48 GB data would consume some time, but certainly the request for adjournment on the said count for one month is rather unjustified.

Incharge, Cyber Cell, Ambala is direc