[2026:RJ-JP:17135]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4594/2026 Vikram Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 86- Mukhya Gram Upar Ka Bas, Lakhasar Rajpooto Ka Bas, Shri Dungargarh, Bikaner Hal Vet Canteen Kool-2, East Camp Mahajan Field Firing Range Bikaner (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl.PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN (Through Video Conferencing)

Order

22/04/2026

1. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 483 of BNSS) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.1/2024 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. First bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on merits vide order dated 29.11.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since rejection of the first bail application, more than one year has elapsed, yet the trial has not progressed beyond the stage of pre-charge evidence and out of total 20 witnesses, only 15 witnesses have been examined in the pre-charge evidence and out of these 15 witnesses, statements of 5 witnesses are in complete. It is contended that the prosecution is not producing its witnesses promptly, resulting in unwarranted delay in the proceedings. Counsel further submits that as the charges have not yet been framed, the applicant is precluded from availing remedy of bail before the Trial Magistrate under Section 480(6) of the BNSS. In these circumstances petitioner has no option but to make prayer before this court for grant of bail. It is urged that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for about 26 months, having been in custody since 27.02.2024. In these circumstances, it is apparent that, his fundamental right to speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stands seriously infringed. Counsel further submits that the applicant is facing trial before the Magistrate Court, where, in any event, the maximum sentence that can be imposed in case of conviction cannot exceed seven years, notwithstanding that the offence alleged carries a maximum punishment of fourteen years. Counsel further argued that, from a perusal of the complaint submitted by the prosecution, it is clear that no incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner’s mobile phone. Moreover, the petitioner has not even been provided with the material that is alleged to have been sent by him through WhatsApp to a person in a neighbouring country. Counsel further submits that even if the allegations made in the complaint are considered on its face value, Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short “the Act of 1923”) will not apply, but at the most, Section 5 of the Act of 1923 will apply to the case of the applicant. He has further argued that, in absence of allegation that the applicant has done it with purpose prejudicial to the safety and interest of the State, which is the per-requisite for application of Section 3, the offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1923, will not apply. Counsel further submits that the delay in the trial is solely attributable to the prosecution, and under such circumstances, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. The petitioner is willing to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court. Finally he submits that in view of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that there is no immediate prospect of being concluded the trial in the near future, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in