The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of possessing classified military documents and allegedly facilitating their transmission to an official of the Pakistan High Commission, observing that the prosecution's case could not be characterised as resting only on a disclosure statement or an uncorroborated allegation.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that although allegations involving national security call for close scrutiny, the invocation of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or the possibility of a sentence extending to 14 years cannot, by itself, conclusively determine a bail application.

“An allegation bearing upon national security calls for close scrutiny; it does not place the matter beyond the Court's bail jurisdiction,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by one Habib Ur Rahman, who was arrested in July 2021 in connection with an FIR registered by the Crime Branch under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, along with various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that classified military documents concerning military training, the operationalisation of the Armed Forces Special Operations Division (AFSOD), and intelligence material were recovered from Rahman.

The Army authorities reportedly verified the documents as genuine, classified and sensitive.

According to the prosecution, Rahman acted as an intermediary between co-accused Naik Clerk Paramjeet Kumar and Rana Muhammad Qasim Zia, stated to be an official of the Pakistan High Commission.

Opposing the bail plea, the State relied on the recovery of the documents, financial transactions, call detail records and the statement of Rahman's employee who allegedly delivered documents to the Pakistan High Commission on his instructions.

The Court observed that, at the bail stage, it was not required to determine whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution would ultimately be proved or what evidentiary weight they would carry at trial.

It noted that a closer examination would risk undertaking the evidentiary assessment that a bail court must avoid.

The Court acknowledged that the period of custody was substantial and that Rahman's compliance with interim bail conditions, along with the absence of any allegation of misuse of liberty, weighed in his favour. However, it held that these circumstances did not outweigh its prima facie assessment of the prosecution material.

The Court also considered Rahman's medical condition and noted that as per the latest medical report recorded, he was wheelchair-dependent, required assistance with daily activities and suffered from multiple ailments.

However, the report did not state that the prescribed treatment could not be provided in custody or that continued incarceration was medically incompatible with his condition.

Dismissing the bail application, the Court directed the trial court to accord due priority to the case and endeavour to record prosecution evidence expeditiously.

“The Jail Superintendent shall ensure that every investigation, specialist consultation, course of physiotherapy, and treatment advised for the Applicant are provided without avoidable delay. Any investigation or treatment unavailable within the jail shall be arranged at an appropriate government hospital,” the Court said.