Official Secrets Act Bail: No Indefinite Custody, Raj HC

No Indefinite Custody When Prosecution Is Lax on Witnesses: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Official Secrets Case

Published: 8 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man held since March 2024 on charges under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, because the prosecution had examined only 4 of its 18 witnesses in pre-charge evidence and had still not filed the forensic report on his mobile phone (paras 6, 11). An undertrial cannot be confined indefinitely when the prosecution is not diligent, and the gravity of the charge alone cannot justify prolonged incarceration, the Court held (para 11).

Key holdings

Where the prosecution fails to proceed with due promptness, continued detention amounts to punishment before conviction (para 11).

Examining only 4 of 18 witnesses despite warrants, with the FSL report still pending, showed a lax prosecution that weighed for bail (paras 6, 11).

State v. Captain Jagjit Singh was distinguished because this case is triable by a Magistrate, capping any sentence at seven years (para 12).

Though Section 480(6) BNSS did not apply before charges were framed, its purpose and spirit guided bail after 19 months in custody (paras 12-13).

Brief Facts

The petitioner was arrested on an FIR of the Special Police Station, C.I.D. (Surakchha), for offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, in custody since 14.03.2024 (paras 1, 6). His first bail plea was withdrawn on 24.01.2025 with liberty to approach the trial court under Section 480(6) BNSS (para 2). His counsel said nothing incriminating was recovered from his phone, that he had not been given the material he allegedly sent on WhatsApp to a person in a neighbouring country, and that Section 3 was not attracted (para 3). The State said the offence carried up to fourteen years, related to the safety of the State and was supported by sufficient material (para 4).

Court's Findings

The trial court's order sheets showed that the complaint was filed on 09.05.2024 but nothing happened for six months while the prosecution sanction was awaited; after cognizance on 25.11.2024 no witness appeared at the next eleven hearings (para 6). Despite bailable and non-bailable warrants, only 4 of 18 witnesses had been examined, two statements stayed incomplete for want of the FSL report, and the prosecution kept seeking time to reply to the accused's application to close evidence (para 6). The Court found the prosecution's approach lax and negligent (paras 6, 11). Prolonged incarceration, especially with an anticipated long trial, is a valid ground for bail under Article 21, though the nature of the offence must be weighed (para 7). After citing Jahir Hak and K.A. Najeeb (para 9), it held that continued detention without progress in the trial amounts to punishment before conviction (para 11). State v. Captain Jagjit Singh was distinguished: that accused faced a Sessions trial carrying fourteen years, while this petitioner faces a Magistrate's trial with a seven-year ceiling (para 12). Section 480(6) BNSS did not apply as charges were not framed, but its purpose could not be ignored (paras 12-13).

Legal Principle

An accused cannot be kept in custody as an undertrial for an indefinite period when the prosecution is not diligent in producing its witnesses. The right to a speedy trial is part of personal liberty under Article 21, and the gravity of the charge alone cannot justify prolonged incarceration where the trial is not progressing (para 11).

Precedents Relied Upon

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 3, 9
Quoted, as considered in Jahir Hak, for the principle that even under special statutes with rigorous bail conditions, accused persons have been enlarged on bail after long custody with little possibility of early completion of trial.
Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2022 (SC) 3047
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
Bail was extended by the Supreme Court in view of the observations in K.A. Najeeb on prolonged custody and delay in trial.
Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (7) SRJ 336
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10
The Supreme Court released an accused on bail with conditions, considering that the trial might take a long time.

View all precedents (8)

Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 5 SCC 140
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Applications under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. call for a liberal approach, particularly where the accused is not at fault for the delay and his custody is substantial compared with the prescribed sentence.
State v. Captain Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 (SC) 253
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 4, 12
Relied on by the State; distinguished because the accused there faced a Sessions trial for an offence carrying fourteen years, whereas the petitioner faces a Magistrate trial with a maximum of seven years.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty against legislative as well as executive action; the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
Masroor v. State of U.P. 2009 (14) SCC 286
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
A balance must be struck between the personal liberty of the accused and the interest of the public and the prosecution.
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014 (16) SCC 508
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Liberty is the fulcrum of a civilised society but is not absolute; courts must balance it against the collective interest.

No Indefinite Custody When Prosecution Is Lax on Witnesses: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Official Secrets Case

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused

Rajasthan High Court Restores LIC Employee’s Full Suspension Pay After Acquittal