O R D E R

The second bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.2957/2023 of the Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam,registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(a) (c) and 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2023.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: while the accused was working on contract basis with the Cochin Shipyard Limited during March, 2023 to 19.12.2023, he had with his mobile-phone taken the photographs of the defence ships and other ships, their maintenance, their position information, information on visits of VVIPs, information about various events inside the shipyard, which is determined as illegal, and transferred the information to the enemy country and the same is being used on a social media account of one Angel Payal.

Accordingly, the accused had shared the official secrets.

Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.Babu S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2023, which is more than 57 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner hails from a financially backward family and has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the investigation is not complete. The Investigating Officer suspects a case of espionage. The Cyber Forensic Investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice. Hence, the bail application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution case is that while the petitioner was working on contract basis with the Cochin Shipyard Ltd., a High – Security and Sensitive Zone, had taken pictures on his mobile phone of sensitive and prohibited matters and had transferred the data to the social media account of one Angel Payal, which is in the enemy country of Pakistan.

7. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on

21.12.2023, which is more than 57 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected.

8. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

9. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

10. Subsequently, in State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and taking into account the fact th