Holding

The High Court should not have granted bail to the accused; the bail order is set aside and the respondent is to remain in judicial custody.

Summary

The respondents, including Jaspal Singh Gill, were charged under sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with section 120‑B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly passing classified military information to a foreign agency. While the trial was pending, Gill applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge and later under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, finding the material before it insufficient to sustain a conviction, granted bail on condition of a personal bond. The State filed a Special Leave Petition seeking revocation of the bail order, arguing that the offences were non‑bailable, involved military secrets, and posed a risk of tampering with evidence and witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the need to protect national security, and the risk of conspiracy, and consequently set aside the bail order, directing that the respondent remain in judicial custody. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial without being bound by the High Court’s observations.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in non‑bailable offences under the Official Secrets Act involving military affairs when the trial has not commenced
Whether the material before the High Court was sufficient to sustain a conviction and justify bail
Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses and the larger public interest warrant denial of bail
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its powers under Sections 439, 437(3) and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in granting bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 437(3), s. 439, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B
Official Secrets Act, 1923s. 3, s. 5, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

bailOfficial Secrets Actnon‑bailable offencenational securityCriminal Procedure CodeSection 439Section 482military affairsespionagerevocation of bail

Judgment

\

\
•
"
A

993

STATE·
B
•
v. ~ - .

JASPAL SINGH GU:,L

' '
Ju~ 25, 19,$4
• ..-, - I I)
- -- t .- • v ' .. ·.- . ·-.1·-· . .

..· ,·, .,. .• ·., {E.8••'\'l!NKA'1'ARkM'lAH, YACATION JUDGE] · .
J, . '. ,, ... " •••·

Sptclal Powers of the High Court to enlarg~. an acrused. 011. ball under
·stctfon 439. (J) read with section •37 (3) and482 of th~ Codi <if Criminal Pr~ .D
• CMhlre, sCOpe of. . . · ,; .-) ~~
.'
The re&pondent along with three others wer~ accu9~d rirq11v;ji;1omfuii'..
ted offences punishable under ss. 3, 5 and 9 of the ()flicjiil Secre~ Act,. 1923
a:
-rea<I ~ithco 120 B of lhe Indian Penal Code and therefore committed to t,he
E
Court of sessions for the said offences. which a·r_e of a· serious :~ture. Du.ring -
thC -investiga:tiOn,__ the -r~sp~~dent maq~ a.it .applicitibn .fg_t/.baLlbe~~ the
Additional Se~sions Judge, New Delhi and it was rejec(!'d .j(i JaliuJii:y; 1984.
Then t1gaili' he ma.de another applicatiotl for bail before,'the St!sij>~S Court.
Before the ~aid a.pPlicatiqn could be ta.ken up he made an application under
8, 482 of. tlte Crimfoal Procedure !Code ,before !the H)gh Court of Delhi
roribaiJ.,. ·Tu.,:10.riied Judge of the High Court who ~eard thp bail application F
' ,;.,..n_t into the tn\!rlts of the case and after holding that the-jllaterial. before the
. ~/ Couft was insufficient to_sustain the conyic.iion of the respondent. pxoceeded
to enlarge him on !:>'ail subject to his. furnishing a Personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 5,000/- with :one surety it'l.· the ti lee arn,ollnt. However, the very same
Learned Judge had di&missed earHiif the bail application of Jasbir Siiigh who
was the employee of the. re•pondent~ Aggri,eved by the order of the High
Court enlarging the respondent,on\bail, the Prosecution has filed this special G
leave petition for revoking the said order of bail; .

Allowing the petition, tlie Court.

HELD : {: J. The Court before granting ,bail in cases, Involving non-
bailable olrences particularly wher~ the trial has not yet commenced should a
•

.. SUPR!M! comT llEPOlTS [1984) 3 s.c.ll;
. A'
tak:t into consi.deration-va'rious Matters auch-as the-Oatµre and seriousnesa of
the- offence, the character of tht evidence, circumstanc~ which are pectiliar to
~he accused, a reasonable possiQilitY Of.the Presence Of the accused not being
1ecure~d at the- trial, rea1onable .apprehension Of witnesses being tamp~red
with, the larger intrestsof the public or the. State and similar other considera-
tions. Further, the Court should cxercfsC'·& gfcate-r degree ot care in enlirR
ging on bail an accused who io charged.wi,th the offence punishable under s. 3
B
or the Official Secre!I Act when it relate• I\> military affairs. Here the offeace
punishable under,, 3 .of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 with whicp the respon·.
•ent is charaed relates to military affairs an.d it is punjshable with imprison-
ment whi1:h may, extend· to foartten years. ··

. ,. ,.
~ ., •
rh1 Stat• v. CM1tain latjit Sinjh,' A.LR. 1962 S.C. 253 Gurcharan.
Sinrh .t Orn. Stat• (D1lhl Acim•.J,{1971i 2.S.C.R. 358; Guciikantl Narsaim'
hwlil <l Ors. " ~uhlic fffleciil~r, Hlth Co•ri of Andlva l.'radesh, (!97BJ 2S.C.R.
361, rcf~r•d to.![998C-D; 998A; 997H]

1 : 2.• The decision oftbe-High Court th,•!.t1ie material collected bYtho .
prosecution aatl lhehidenre to be adduced at the trial would not be. sufficien\ , .
to sustain a conviction app~~rs tq be.A premature one.in the circumptances or··
this case. Tho allegations made by tbe prosecution which no doubt have slill
- to be established •.t the. Wal suggest that the •eapondent pd the person•
accused S:loopjih hi qi a"'ie persons of eBay conscience in'·so far as thC ilitei:reits
and security Of the counm• is concerned, 'fhe current Sitpatlon in the COlldlfl'
is such .that it can easjlj/, be eXp!Oited by UQlcrupUJOu! men to their OWD Of tO. ·
E some fofeign powet'sadva.ntage. :These aspects. Of thO case do not appear to ,
have' been c0 nsidered by the IftJh Court. Further.' while dismissina theJie.il
application of Jasbir Singh on April 24, .1984•..the learned Judge of the ljigh; j i
Courth.ad relied on.the decision Of \his:~urt in Captain J~Jlt Sillgh's 'ca16;. . •
.•.
hj> tias not even rereired to that di:cisiop while granting'bai) to the respon-
o'h May a, 1984:° some qt the observations (llllde by th• Hieb C11im asainit
.· 'the snstainabliitY of thO ca1.e of criminal conspiracy_all~edbi' tbcpl))lecution•.
at this stage were not called for. 'l'he circun1stance of this case .are sue!) ·that'. ,
the qUestlOn whether.. the ~se of ~ftminaf conspiracy had be~n made oµt_or . ·
not should haV. qeen left to be decided by. the irial court at the. ,Po4 of the .
trial. op. a ~onSideraticitt of t~e c:ntire eviden.cc addu~ed in th.~ case. Ther~:·
fore, the High Court should not qave enlirged the respondent on bail in· the
larger inierest Jof theStaet.
' '
[998B; 999B-F}
•
·· · . . · '.
·G
CRIMINAL APPl!LLATE JURISD!CTIOJ:I ; Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 1543 of 1984. .

. · J:rom the JudSo!•rlt and Otder dated the 3rd day ot'M~y,
1984 'Cir tbe Delhi High Court in Cr!. M(p;f) No.' 421 of 1984 · · · '
H ti

'.
.. . ..,_ i
• 995.
STATE ves. GiLL (Venkataramiah, J.)
• A
-· R.N. Poddar for the Petitioner.

Miss Rani Jethmaldni for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
VENKATARAMIAH, J. Four persons-Maj. General (Retd.J
F.D. Larkins, Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) K.H.. Larkins, Lt. Col.
(Retd.) Jasbir Singh and Jaspal Singh Gill aljas Jassi Gill, thci
responde~ t herein. were accused of having committed offences
punishable under sections 3, 5 and 9 of. the Official Secrets Act, c
1923 rea.d with section 120-B of the I.ndian Penal Code and of
them F.D. Larkins and Jasbir Singh were also accused of having
committed the offence punishable under section 6 of the Official
Becrets Act, 1923 ·in a complaint filed by the Deputy Com·
mlssoner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi witfi the authorisation
of \he Government of India before the Additional Chief Metro·
,.,
· .politan Magistrate, Patiala House, New 'Delhi.

The pfosecution case appears to rest inter a/ia on the
following facts : On March 24, 1983, Group Captain Jasjit Singh ·
E
informed the Air. Vice Marshal (now Air Marshal) Shri $.
Raghavendran that for. som.e days immediately prior to that daie
AVM (Retd.) K.H. Larkinss then resident of Azad Apartmenis,
Mehrau\i Road, New Delhi, under whom he had served earlier,
was inducing him to pass on secret manuals of aircrafts used by ·
the Indian Air Force for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- pe'r F
document. AVM Raghavendran brought this to the notice -of his
superiors. Thereafter further information was collected and the
movements of AVM (Retd.)-K.H. Larkins were kept under. obser·
vation. The links. of the · said K. H. Larkins and his brother
Major Geheral (Retd.)- F.D. Larkins were discovered .. A First
Information· Report was registered at Police· Station; Tughlak · G
. Road, New Delhi.
. .
On November. 11, 1983 raids were conducied at the residence .
of K.H. Larkins as. weJI as that of F.D. Larkins. Ccrt:ii!1 incrimi-
nating items are stated to have· been ~ecovered from .fie ftltter's · H

•
•
996
I
..
SUPREME COURf REPoifTs [1984] 3 s.c.R..

house. His alleged that on interrogation after arrest F.D. L.arkins
and K.H. Larkins confessed t.hat they had been passing. on classi-
fie0d information relating to the defence of the country' to a foreign
agency.

B It is further alleged that Major General (Retd). F.D. Larkins
state~ that. he had engaged .T:t. Col. {Reid.) Jasbir Slngh as his
sub•agent for procuring secret/restricted documents and.manuals
relatihg to armament. On this disclosure the search of· the house ·
of Jasbir Singh was condubted on November 13 1983 and he was
arrested and. remanded. to police· custody .. It· is stated that on
c interrogation he disclosed that he had been passing on secret/clas-
. sified information to Major General. (Retd.) F.D. Larkins and
Jaspal Singh Gill, the respondent, for monetary co'nsideration.
H~ appears to have further disclosed that many secret/restricted
manuals and. documents were .uilauthorisedly got issued to him
from D.G.J. and E,ME.libraries to which ·he ~ined access through
D the good offices of certain Army. Officers and by impersonating.
himself as a serving officer when actually he was retire'1 and that
the information contained iii these documents and manuals was
. passed on by. him to Major General (Retd.) F.D; Larkins and
· Jaspal singh Gill alias Jassi Gill . resident. of 82, Sunder Nagar,
E New Delhi, the respopdent, who representen a private firm namely,
M/s EMGEE Tnternational Pvt. LJd., and with whom he,
Lt. ·col (Reid.) Jasbir Singh,. ·was also. working as consultant.
On the basis of the said disclosure made by the said Jasbir
Singh, the search of the house of Jaspal. Singh GilJ alias.Jassi
Dill,· the respondent herein, was co11ducted · at 82, Sunder '
F Na gar. New Delhi. Some secret/restricted documents .· alongwith .
a Defence telephone · directory connected with the Army are
stated· to have bee~ recovered from his. possmion and he was
arrested on November 19, 1983.

G . ·It is alleged that ihe respondent herein had obtained cfassified ·
• information on defence m,atters through the· aforesaid Jasbir
Singh for monetary. consideration .tnd bad passed on the infor-
mation to the U.S. Intelligence Opergton, During 'the search
of the hoJl.'e. of Jaspal Sil)gh as many as l3 invitation cards from
the tr.S. ~cials· for. cocklail and "dinner parties· are alleged to
have been recovered. showing the' association of the respondent

•
-,

·. STATE v. s. GILL (Venkataramiah, J.) 997

-,.. ' •
with foreign agents as defined in section 4 of the Offieial Secrets·
Act. It is alleged that the respondent. was paying Rs: 1,000/- per
month to Jasbir Singh and Rs. !,OOOf "per .month to the wife of
Jasbir Singh. ·

B
It is further alleged that the copy of the Defence telephone
directory was a restricted document, the disclosure. of the contents
of which to unauthorised persons is prejudicial to the interest and
·security- of the country. · '

c
All the accused persons including the· respondent have been
. committed to the Court of Sessions for the .the · vario.lls offences
which are really of a serious nature.

During the investigation, the respondent made an .application D
for b!!il before the Addl. Sessions Judge, New J)elhi and it was
..rejectecfin January, 1984. Then again he made another application ·
~' for bail before the Sessions Court. Before the said .!lfil:ll;tation
could be taken up, he made an application undct section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code befor3 the Hige Court of Delhi for
E
bail.. The learn~d Judge. of .the High Court w.ho heard the bail
application went into the merits of the ·case and after holding that ..
the material before the Court was insufficient to sustain the con•
viction of the respondent proceeded to enlarge him ·on bail Subject
t.o his. furnishing a personal ·bond in the su~1 of Rs: 5,000/- with
one surety in the like amount. it may be staled here that•he F
very same }earned Judge had dismissed earlier the bail application
of Jasbir Singh who was the employee of the respondent. Aggrie-
. ved. by the' order' of the High Court enlarging the respondent on
· bail, th~ · prosecution has · filed ibis Special Leave Pe'tition for
revoking the said order of bail.
G

The offence punishable · unner section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act, 1923 with. which the respondent is charged relates to
military affairs and it is punishable with impriso~ment which may
extend to fourteen years. This Court in The State v. Captain
H
· Jagjit 3ingh!'\ has indicated that the Court should eiercise ll ·
. ~I) A.I.R. 1'62 s,c, 2S3
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (1984) 3 s.C.R.
A
• greater degree or ~are in enlarging ~n .bail an accused wlit>1s
charged with the offence. punishable under seciion 3 of the Official r·
• Secrets Act when it relates to . military affairs: I h~ve also go~e .
thr9ugh the decisions oft.his Court . iii Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v.
State (l)clhi Administtation)l1l and Gudikanti Naiasimhulu·& Ors. v.
B Publi~ Prosecutor, High Court "/ Andhra_Prade~hl') which deal with
, the principles 'gov.erning the grarit ·or bail. Jt may be mentioned. •
in
here that ihe l:.st of the above ·cases, the accnssed had been
acquitted by the tTial . court hut convicted by the High Court on ·
, appeal. On. a consideration ·of the above three decisions, I am
of the .view that the Court . before granting bail in cases i1,1volving
c non-bailable . offences particularly iyhere the trial bas not yet
corilmenced should take into consideration .various matters such
as the natllfl'. and seriousness of the on.ence, tbe character of the
evidence, circumstances which are {leculiar to the accused, a
rea$onable pos~ibility of the presence of the accused .not being
D secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension· of witnesses being
tampered with, the larger .interests of the public or the State and
· similar other consideraiions.

• Q
•
On going throvgh the o.rder passed by /he· High Court, I feel
E
that its decision that the ·material collected by the prosecutions and
the evidence io be adduced at tfie trial would not be sufficient to·
sustain a conviction appea;s to be a _premature orie in the circum·
stances of this case. Since the trial is yet to begin; I do not pro·
pose to say anythin~ more · at this sjage lest it should prejudice
F. either the accused or the prosecution than observipg that on a'
p~rsual of the complaint .anti the other material available in the
case, it cannot reasonably be stated that the prosecution case
against the respon.dent is such that _it can be~thtown out at t.he
threshold. It appears that a prima facie case: is made out against .
the respondent. .The gravity of the offences is quite .obvious.
G They relate to the secutity of the· State, Espionage and intelli-
gence are utilised to pass ~n information regarding miii.tary plans;
equipment, technical advances etc. of one country to another.
Naturally passing on of . such information from our couni.ry to a
foreign· count1' is bound to .be most harmful to our country. The·
H _.~-'-~~~--'-~~
(l) [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358.
·. (2) · [1978] 2 S.C-R, 371.
srAtil v. s. GILL (Venkatdrarniah, J.) 999
persons accused alongwitl: the respondent are. admittedly ex-mili- A
tary men well versed in ..military affairs who are capable of esta"
blishing bridges with the sensitive sections of the defence servkes.
The respondent is also alleged· to be having some dealings with
the defence department and··Jasbir Singh ~ in the employment
of the respondent. .The.. allegations made by the prosecution B
4. which no doubt have still to be established at the trial sugge~t that
the respondent and tbe persons accused alongwith him are persons
of easy conscience. in so far a.s the 'interests and security of the
·country are concerned.. The current situation ·in the country is
. such that it can be easily be exploited by unscrupulous men to
their own or to some foreign power's advantage. These aspects of c
of the case do not appear to. have . been considered by the High
Court. It is seen that while dismissing the hail application of
Jasbir Singh on April 24, 1984, the learned Judge qf !he High
Court had relied on the decision of this Court in Captain Jagjit
Singh's case (supra), he has not· even referred to that decision
D
while granting bail to. the. respondent on May 3, 1984. Some.of
. the observations m~<le by the High Couri against the sustainabi·
..•lity of the case of criminal conspiracy alleged by the prosecution
at this stage were not called for: The circumstances of this case
are such that the question. whether the case of criminal conspiracy
had been made out or not should have been left to be decided by E
the trial court at the end of the trial on a consideration of the
entire evidence adduced in the case.

"' .. In the circumstances, I am of the view. that· the High Court
should. not have enlarged the respo_ndent. on bail in the larger
i.nterests of the state. It is urged that the respon~ent is a person
•·
F
who has undergone a cardiac operation and 'needs constant medi-
cal attention. I am sure..that the ·prison authorities will arrange .
for proper treatment of the respondent whenever the deed for it .
arises ..
G
J I am informed that in a criminal revision petition filed by
one of the accused, the High Court has stayed the trial of the case
The High Court is requested to dispose of the. case early since the
.\ accused are all in judicial custody.
. "
The order of bail passed by the High Court was suspende.d .H
by this Court by an order made on June 4, 1984 ~nd the respon·
. 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 s.c.R.

A dent was ordered.to· ·be. rearrested ·and kept in_judicial_custody·
The respondent is now taken back into judicial custody'. · I\ ...,.
In . the result, . the order . of the High Court enlarging the ·
respondent on bail is' set. - aside and.. .the respondent is directe<l
' - ~
to.
remain judical custoCly until further orders to be passed by a
B competent court.
1
The trial court shall proceed to dispose of the' case without
feeling itself bound by any of the observations ·of the High Cou.rt. .

S.R. .Petition aliowed

·•

fiJ
• ;: