DRDO Espionage Case: Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Accused After Almost Four Years In Jail

The Orissa High Court has recently granted bail to a man, accused of sharing classified information relating to missile testing at Integrated Test Range (ITR) with foreign nationals, on the ground of prolonged pre-trial detention.While giving relief to the petitioner, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –“Although an accused is charged with an offence, but he is not a convict until conclusion of the trial, since the accused has valuable far-reaching rights under criminal jurisprudence to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty and this right cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.”Case BackgroundThe petitioner, Basanta Kumar Behera, a contractual AC operator at ITR, Balasore was accused of sharing secret defence information with regard to missile testing to certain foreign nationals through social media. It was alleged that the petitioner received certain sum of money in exchange of such information. Accordingly, an FIR under Sections 120-B/121/121-A/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3/4/5 of the Official Secrets Act was registered against him and other co-accused.The petitioner has been in detention since September 2021. He sought bail on the ground of prolonged pre-trial detention for about four years. It was his further contention that though serious accusations were levelled against him, but the prosecution could not establish any culpable role played by him and he was arrested merely on the basis of an FIR.It was also submitted that though unlawful financial gain in exchange of classified information was alleged, but the Investigating Officer (IO) did not state about the same in his evidence rather confined his statement to mere recovery of certain screenshots and photos. It was also highlighted that other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail in the meantime.Article 21 applies irrespective of gravity of offenceAfter examining the rival contentions, the Court took note of the fact that the accused had been in detention since September 2021. The trial is yet to be concluded as 19 out of 28 witnesses are examined so far. Though accusations were sought to be established against the petitioner on the basis of his confession before police, such confession is not admissible in evidence. Furthermore, though mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized, the Court noted, no forensic evidence was recovered against him.Justice Satapathy cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, LL 2021 SC 56 to hold that bail can be granted even in serious offences if the likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time is less. The Bench further observed –“No doubt, the allegation levelled against the Petitioner is serious, but no procedure which does not ensure speedy trial can be regarded as fair trial, however, bail cannot be refused merely on the gravity of the allegation when the accused has suffered substantial period in custody.”It was further reiterated that irrespective of the gravity of the offence alleged, an accused possesses the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, it is the duty of the State to conduct the trial with reasonable promptitude, and speedy trial is to be granted to every accused whether or not it is demanded by him/her.“Besides, neither the Court nor any one can be permitted to take the plea that since the accused did not demand for early hearing in the matter, he was not provided with speedy trial. Under no circumstances a person accused of an offence can be denied the right to a speedy trial only because he had not complained of infringement of his right to speedy trial nor has insisted upon such speedy trial.”Therefore, taking into account the accusation along with the period of detention, bleak likelihood of conclusion of trial in the immediate future and positive conduct of the accused while on interim bail, the Court deemed it proper to grant him bail with certain conditions, violation of which shall entail curtailment of his liberty.Case Title: Basanta Kumar Behera v. State of OdishaCase No: BLAPL No. 2876 of 2024Date of Order: July 01, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate Counsel for the State: Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. Public Prosecutor Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 88Click Here To Read/Download Order

DRDO Espionage Case: Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Accused After Almost Four Years In Jail

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags