P&H High Court Grants Bail In Official Secrets Act Case, Says 'Y+ Security' Communication Prima Facie Not Secret

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man booked under the Official Secrets Act, observing that a communication regarding grant of 'Y+' security to him does not prima facie fall within the ambit of “official secrets”. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 223]

Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "Upon a prima facie consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not evident, at this stage, as to how the communication directing the extension of 'Y+' security to the petitioner would fall within the ambit of an "official secret" so as to attract the rigours of the Official Secrets Act, 1923."

The Court further noted that the communication pertained to the grant of security cover to the petitioner himself and therefore, the petitioner appears to be the intended beneficiary and lawful recipient of such information.

It added that although the prosecution alleges that the said communication was unauthorisedly shared with the petitioner, there is no material to prima facie indicate that the petitioner disclosed the contents thereof in the public domain or utilised the same in a manner prejudicial to the interests sought to be protected under the statute.

Rather, the record indicates that the petitioner merely relied upon a copy of the said communication while approaching the competent authority for implementation of the directions contained therein.

Whether the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are ultimately made out is a matter to be determined during the course of trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties, and this Court consciously refrains from expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the controversy, it added.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Pathak under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC), seeking bail in FIR registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda.

The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Bathinda. As per the prosecution, a confidential communication issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Security), Chandigarh on May 11, 2026, regarding provision of security to the petitioner—was allegedly shared unauthorisedly with him by an unidentified police official. The petitioner was accused of misusing the contents of the communication.

He was booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

The petitioner contended that he is a whistleblower who has exposed corruption and irregularities by public officials, and that the case was a result of victimisation. It was argued that he had merely relied on the communication to seek implementation of directions granting him 'Y+' security.

The Court further noted that there was no material to show that the petitioner had disclosed the contents in the public domain or used it in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the State.

The Court clarified that whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out would be determined during trial.

Taking into account that the petitioner had been in custody for over a month, that investigation was substantially complete, and that the trial would take time, the Court held that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail, subject to conditions including non-interference with evidence, restriction on travel abroad without permission, and disclosure of personal and financial details before the trial court.

Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Title: SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP PATHAK v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to read order