Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Jyoti Rani alias Jyoti Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition concerns allegations under official secrets act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments emphasize lack of evidence and procedural issues. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. cited case laws relevant to bail under official secrets act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. prosecution claims substantial evidence and criminal intent. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court underscores gravity of allegations and evidence threshold. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. bail petition dismissed; no opinion on case merits. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
1. This petition for bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 153 dated 16.05.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 3, 4 and 5 of ‘the Official Secrets Act, 1923’ and Section 152 of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ Police Station Hisar Civil Lines, District Hisar, Haryana.
3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.
5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innoc
Bail for offences under the Official Secrets Act is not granted lightly when serious allegations of espionage and substantial evidence exist against the accused.
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.
A journalist's bail was granted based on jurisdictional grounds, and no substantial evidence of tampering was found, despite allegations under the Official Secrets Act and PMLA.
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.
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....
The court upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for bail; substantial evidence indicating involvement in terrorist activities justifies denial of bail under UAPA.
Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial....
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
