Chuhar Singh vs State of Punjab

Inderjit Singh, J.—Petitioner Chuhar Singh has preferred the instant petition u/s 437(6) Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.

108 dated 11.10.2011, registered at Police Station Cantt Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, under Sections 3 and 9 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and

u/s 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been concluded within 60

days from the first date of recording of evidence, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

contended that the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2011 and the trial has not been concluded so far.

On the other hand, learned State counsel contested the bail application.

The perusal of the record shows that the FIR against the petitioner is under Sections 3 and 9 of Official Secrets Act and u/s 120-B IPC. The

allegations against the petitioner are that he is employed in MES Ferozepur Cantt., and he sent secret information of Indian Army, location of units,

activities of the Army and ammunition to ISI Pakistan through mobile and other sources which effect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

In the present FIR, learned trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the bail applications of the petitioner, have

given the reasoning. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in concluding the evidence,

therefore, he be granted bail and the reasoning cannot be sustained. Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. provides bail if the trial before the Magistrate is not

concluded within two months from the first date of evidence. There is also one exception if the Magistrate otherwise directs for reason to be

recorded in writing. The Magistrate has given the reasons for not granting bail to the petitioner and dismissed the bail application in view of the

allegations against the accused and the gravity of the offence regarding collecting of secret information of Army etc., and sending it to Pakistan.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the order, has also considered this aspect and observed that from the nature of the material

recovered from the petitioner-accused and the witnesses required to be examined in conclusion of the trial in such short span of time is not

possible. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also given similar observations

which are well related to the nature of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited State of Haryana : 2009 (4) RCR (Cri.) 974 Smt. Kamlesh versus State of Haryana and State of

Punjab : 2009 (3) RCR (Cri.) 291 Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab.

I have gone through the aforesaid citations.

These citations, having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case.

So, from the averments in the FIR and from the allegations against the petitioner-accused, I find that nature and gravity of the offence is also to

be seen for releasing the petitioner on bail u/s 437(6) Cr.P.C., and also whether the trial of such type of cases can be concluded within 60 days

from the first date of evidence. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot

be held as not sustainable.

Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. However, as the petitioner is in custody for such a long time, therefore, the trial

Court is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest, preferably within three months by giving short dates and even adjourning the case on day to

day basis. The trial Court is also directed to send the status report to this Court after three months.