Order 34

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: I.A. No. 05/2026
SC No.140/2023
State Vs. Shri Krishan
FIR No.265/2022
PS: Crime Branch
08.06.2026
Present: Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld.Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Harish Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
1. Arguments on the bail application were heard on
05.06.2026 and additional arguments were addressed
today.
2. Ld. counsel for the applicant had argued that accused is in
judicial custody for the last 3 and a half years, he has been
falsely implicated in the present case. No incriminating
material was found to prove that applicant has shared the
information. It is argued that applicant was honey trapped.
The trial is likely to take some time and thus the applicant
may be granted regular bail. In his support Ld. Counsel for
the applicant has relied upon the judgment in
Ashok
Kumar Mishra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Bail
Application No.1878/2021 decided on 12.03.2025 and
Ishwar @ Pandit Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Bail
Application No. 3121/2025 decided on 28.11.2025.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Addl.PP for State submits that
allegations are serious in nature. The regular bail
application has been repeatedly dismissed by courts and as
such no ground is made out to enlarge the present
-- 1 of 4 --
applicant on bail.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was working
as MTS on contractual basis in Ministry of External
Affairs. On the basis of secret information a raid was
conducted and applicant was interrogated, during the time
of interrogation the phone of applicant was checked and it
was found containing screenshots of secret
details/documents/ photographs. The mobile phone
contained many photographs of classified documents
including file noting many of which bear the word “secret”
over the top. The bank account statement of applicant was
analyzed, which had credit entries in his account from
unknown sources. One of the transferor namely Noor
Fatima was examined, who stated that she had transferred
the money in the bank account of the applicant on the
directions of one client namely Hameed, who is based in
Pakistan.
6. The counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment
which lays down that right to speedy trial is enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution and if there is a delay in trial
then the applicant is to be granted bail.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab Vs. Balraj
Singh @ Billa SLP (Crl.) No. 896/2026 decided on
02.06.2026 had observed that paramount consideration is
nothing but interest of justice of all. Should there be any
conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal
-- 2 of 4 --
liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly
when a war is raged against the nation, be it in the form of
supply of drugs which vitally affects the national economy
and the health of the people.
8. The court also noted that what constitutes “prolong
incarceration” for the purpose of bail has not been
expounded by the court or the law of the land.
9. In terms of the aforesaid judgment it has to be seen
whether the accsued is in prolonged incarceration and
whetrhere there is any delay in trial. The accused has been
in custody from 19.11.2022, i.e. for about 3 years 6 month.
The maximum punishment provided under Section 3 of the
Officials Secret Act is 14 years in case the offence is
committed in relation to any work of defence etc.
10. In the present case the accused was found to be in
possession of documents which were sensitive and
confidential in nature. Charges were framed on
18.03.2024. 14 witnesses have been examined out of 33
witnesses cited by the prosecution, on an average seven
witnesses in a year. It is no where the case of the accused
that there is some kind of stagnation in the trial.
Considering the pendency before the court, the trial is
proceeding and testimony of witnesses are being recorded
in expeditious manner.
11. The earlier bail applications have been dismissed by the
Ld. Predecessor of this court on 17.03.2023, 22.10.2024 &
09.05.2025. The bail applications have been dismissed by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dt. 06.12.2023 &
-- 3 of 4 --
22.10.2024.
12. Considering the larger interest of the public and the State
applicant does not deserve bail.
13. It is the case of the applicant that he was honey trapped.
Even if he was honey trapped, why he received the money,
if he was simply honey trapped. Hence, this argument also
stands rejected.
14. Considering the gravity of the offence and the severity of
the punishment, no ground is made out to enlarge the
present applicant on bail.
15. Application filed by the applicant seeking bail stands
dismissed.
16. Copy of order be given dast.
17. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to any opinion on the
merits of the case. The observation made herein are only
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application.
18. A hard as well as soft copy be sent to Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary action.
19. Application stands disposed off.
(ANKUR JAIN-I)
ASJ-04/Central/Delhi
08.06.2026
km
-- 4 of 4 --