ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.11 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5851/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2022

in BA No.855/2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court)

ROUNAK ALI HAZARIKA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM Respondent(s)

(IA No. 87147/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT)

Date : 14-10-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Devadatt Kamat,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Pai Amit, AOR

Mr. Rajesh Inamdar,Adv.

Mr. Sudipto Bhattacharjee,Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Saha,Adv.

Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj,Adv.

Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Nalin Kohli,Sr.AAG

Ms. Nimisha Menon,Adv.

Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR

Mr. Kumar Arnav Singhdeo,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

This is a petition for grant of bail.

The petitioner/accused has been arrested in connection with

Special Case No.2/2022 arising out of Vigilance Police Station Case

No.6/2021.

The petitioner is facing charges for offences punishable under

1

Digitally signed by

DEEPAK SINGH

Date: 2022.10.15

15:34:35 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

section 13(1)(a)(b)/13(2)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

read with Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 3(c)/4(1)/5 of the

Official Secrets Act, 1923. The petitioner belongs to the Indian

Police Services. He was posted at different places in the State of

Assam.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he possesses

assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The other allegation is that he has made certain foreign visits,

and as such, the act amounts to espionage and, therefore, is

punishable under the provisions of Official Secrets Act, 1923.

We have heard Shri Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Nalin Kohli, learned counsel for the State

of Assam.

Shri Kohli, learned counsel, has vehemently opposed the

application/petition. He submitted that, as per the Office

Memorandum dated 29.01.2013, the petitioner could not have

travelled abroad unless a permission, as provided under the said

Office Memorandum (for short, ‘OM’), was obtained from the

competent authority. It was further submitted that two of the

petitioner’s visits cast a great cloud of suspicion over his

conduct. He submitted that the petitioner had visited Hongkong on

12.04.2013 and returned on 21.04.2013. However, on the very next

day i.e. on 22.04.2013, he travelled to Dubai. He submitted that

the petitioner was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police

(Border) and there are strong reasons to believe that he has

connections with enemy states.

We have perused the material on record. No doubt that the

2

office Memorandum dated 29.01.2013 requires a prior permission to

be taken from the State Government even when an officer of the

State Government travels abroad on a private visit. However, the

petitioner has placed on record a communication dated 05.12.2007

issued by the Director (Services), Government of India, Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel

and Training. The perusal of paragraph 2(i) therein would reveal

that, when an officer in the cadre of All-India Services travels

abroad on a private visit, he is not required to obtain prior

permission. We do not propose to go into the question as to

whether the Office Memorandum dated 29.01.2013 would also be

applicable to the petitioner or not. Be that as it may, if there

is a violation of the said OM, as provided