##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4188]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 16907/2025

Pradeep Kumar @ Ankit S/o Jagpal Singh, R/o Krishana Nagar

Gali No. 10, Police Station Gangnahar, Janpath Roorkee,

Uttarakhand, At Present Gunner No. 15257477K, 881 Missile

Regiment Unit, Jodhpur. (Presently Confined At Central Jail,

Jaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.C. Jain, Adv. with

Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

28/01/2026

1. This third bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been

filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in

connection with FIR No.02/2022 registered at Special Police

Station, District C.I.D Surakchha (Raj.) for offences punishable

under Sections 3 & 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

2. The first and second bail applications filed on behalf of the

petitioner were dismissed on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court vide orders dated 15.02.2023 and 19.03.2024,

respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble

Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

16159/2024. Vide order dated 27.01.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court declined to grant bail and permitted the petitioner to

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:02:54 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 07:57:47 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4188] (2 of 14) [CRLMB-16907/2025]

withdraw the petition, while granting liberty to apply for bail

before the appropriate Court after completion of recording of pre-

charge evidence. Pursuant thereto, a bail application was filed by

the petitioner before the learned trial Court, which came to be

dismissed on 13.11.2025. Hence, this third bail application has

been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted

that the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2022, and as such he

has already suffered incarceration of about three years and eight

months. Counsel submits that pre-charge evidence were

concluded on 24.04.2025 i.e., after more than two years and

eleven months of the arrest of the petitioner. Thereafter, charges

were framed against the petitioner under Sections 3 & 9 of the

Act, vide order dated 19.11.2025, after six months of conclusion

of pre-charge evidence. Counsel submits that over two months

have elapsed since the charges were framed, yet the prosecution

has failed to examine its witnesses, thereby causing an

unwarranted delay in the proceedings. In these circumstances, it

is urged that the fundamental right of the petitioner to a speedy

trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

stands seriously infringed. Learned counsel further submits that

the petitioner is facing trial before the Magistrate Court, where,

even in the event of conviction, the maximum sentence that may

be imposed would not exceed seven years, notwithstanding that

the offence alleged carries a maximum punishment of fourteen

years. It is further argued that a perusal of the complaint filed by

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:02:54 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 07:57:47 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4188] (3 of 14) [CRLMB-16907/2025]

the prosecution would reveal that no incriminating material has

been recovered from the mobile phone of the petitioner. Moreover,

the petitioner has not been supplied with the alleged material

which is stated to have been transmitted by him through

WhatsApp to a person in a neighbouring country. Learned counsel

submits that even if the allegations contained in the complaint are

accepted at its face value, the provisions of Section 3 of the

Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of

1923”) are not attracted, and at best, the case would fall within

the ambit of Section 5 of the Act of 1923. It is contended that in

the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioner acted

with a purpose pre