*,
STATE - ae
JASPAL SINGH GILL aoe aD £9 Pas
7 " = ws AE sstveveininiot, Vacation Juoéi
Special Powers of the High Court to enlarge, an accused. ot. bail under
_\ “geetion 439. (1) read with section #37 (3) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Pro.
cedure, scope of.
"993
“ae o .
: , “The respondent along with three others were accused of faving comnitted offences punishable under ss. 3, Sand 9 of the Official Secrejs Act,. 1923 read ith: 8, 120 B of the Indidn Penal Code and therefore committed to the Court of Séssions for the said offences which are of a serious mature. During: the investigation, the Tespondent Made an application fgr/-bajl before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and it was rejected. Jattuary, 1984. Then again’ fe made another applicatiot for bail before, the Sessions Court. - Before the Said application could be taken up he made an application under s; 482-of, the Criminal Procedure [Code , before {the High Court of Dethi for;bail.. ‘The learned Judge of the High. Court who heard the bai] application went into the merits of the case and after holding that the paterial . before the Court was insufficient to sustain the conyiction of the respotident, proceeded ‘to enlarge him on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Ra. 5,000/- with'one surety in the like amount.. However, the very same Learned Judge had dismissed earliét the bail. application of Jasbir Singh who ‘was the employee of ‘the. respondent. Aggrieyed by the order of the High Court enlarging the respondent on bail, the prosecution has filed this special leave petition for revoking the said order of bail:
Allowing the petition, the Court.
_ HELD +131, The Court beforé granting ,bail in cases-involying nonbailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should atin
*.
° 994 oo SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 3 S.C.Ri - - take into consideration v various matters such as the’ natyre and seriousness of
. the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstance which are peculiar to : the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being - : : secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered ‘wa.
" with, the larger intrests of the public or the: State and similar other considerations. Further, the Court should exercise a greater degree of care in enlar- ging on bail an accused who is charged-with the offence punishable under s. 3- of the Official Secrets Act when it relates to military affairs, Here the offence punishable under s, 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 with which the respon- -
. dent is charged relates to military affairs and it is punishable with imprison. ’ ment which may.extend to fourteen years.
ae
’ kul & Ors, y. Public. Prosecutor, High Conri of Andhra Pradesh, £1978) 2 S.c.R.
The State’ y. Captain Jagiit ‘Singh; AL R. 1962 S.C, 253 Gurcharan. . Singh & Orry, State (Dethi Admn, ),{1978] 28.C.R. 358; Gudikanti Narsaim-
361, referred to, Hp98C-D; 998A; S97]
1:2. The decision of the High | Court that the material collected by the - ;
. prosecution aml the evidence to be adduced at the trial would not be sufficient . .
“ON to sustain a conviction appears to be-A premature one in the circumstatices of this case. -The allegations made by the prosecution which no doubt have still to be established -at the. trial suggest that the sespondent and the persons accused alongwith him are persons of easy conscience in'so far as the interests and security of the country is concerned, The current situation in the comtry
_ is such that it can easily, be exploited by unactupulous Men to thejrownorte, 2 * some foteign power’s advantage. ‘These aspects of the case do not appear to.” Fo haye been consideréd by the High Court. Further,’ while dismissing the. bail. ; application of Jasbir. Singh on April 24, 1984, the learned Judge of the High» rr i Court had relied on the decision of this. Coutt i in Captain Jaglit Singh's case...
- hp fias tiot even referred to that decision while Sranting bai] to the respondent”
fore, the High Court should not have enlarged the respondent. on bail in- the "
ob May 3, 1984. .Some of the observations made by the High Court against the sustainability of thé cage of criminal conspiracy alleged by the prosecution, .
at this stage-were not called for.” The circumstance of this case are such that’. oy the question whether the case of criminal conspiracy had been made out or | ad not should ‘have been left to be decided by the trial court at the end of the. 5 trial on a consideration of the entire evidence adduced in the case. _ Thete-' . - — larger interest of the’ Stact. (998E; ‘9998-F} OO ae “0
CRIMINAL APPELLATE TuRispicrion : : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 1543 of 1984.
_>. From the Judgment and. Order dated: the 3td day of May, koe "1984 of the Delhi High ¢ Court i in Cri. M(M) No. 421 of 1984.5 * "
8, §
STATE ves. GILL (Venkataramiah, J.) "995°
+ R.N. Poddar for the Petitioner. Miss Rani Jethmaldni for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. ‘Four persons—Maj. General (Retd.)
FD. Larkins, Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) K.H. Larkins, Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh and Jaspal Singh Gill alias Jassi Gill, the respondent herein, were accused of having committed offences. punishable under sections 3,5 and9 of. the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with section 120-B of the Indian 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 ‘Secrets Act, 1923 in a complaint filed by the Deputy Commissoner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi with the authorisation of the. Government of India before the Additional Chief Metro- ; politan Magistrate, Patiala Housé, New Delhi.
The prosecution case appears to rest inter alia on the ' following facts: On March 24, 1983, Group Captain Jasjit Singh informed the Air Vice Marshal (now Air Marshal) Shri S. _ Raghavendran that for some days immediately prior to that daie -
AVM (Retd.) K.H. Larkinss then resident of Azad Apartments, Mehrauli 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/- per ‘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 General (Retd.) F.D. Larkins were discovered. A First
Informatiun Report was registered at Police’ Station, Tughlak mo
- Road, New Delhi.
~ On November. 11, 1983 raids were conducted at the residence ,
~. of K.H. Larkins as, well as that of FD. Larkins. Certain incrimi- :
nating items are stated to have been fecovered from @he Mitter’s ”
. agency.
' 996 on _ SUPREME courT RePottrs oo [1984] 3 s.c.R..
- house. It is alleged that on-interrogation after arrest F.D. Larkins and’ K.H. Larkins confessed that they had been passing. on classified information relating to ‘the defence of the country to-a foreign
It is further alleged that Major General (Retd).- F.D. Larkins , stated that he had engaged Et. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh as his sub-agent for procuring secret/restricted documents and manuals
- relating to armament. On this disclosure the search of the house : “of Jasbir Singh was conducted on November 13 1983 and he was arrested and. remanded. to police custody... It ‘js stated that oninterrogation 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 consideration. —
-- He appears to have further disclosed that many secret/restricted -manuals and. documents were unauthorisedly got issued to him — : from D.G.1. and EME. libraries to: which ‘he gained access through the good offices of certain Army, Officers and by impersonating bimself as a serving officer when actually he was rétireg and that the information contained in 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,
-New. Delhi, the respondent, who represented a private firm namely,
M/s EMGEE International Pvt. Ltd.,.-and with whom he,
Lt. ‘Col -(Retd.) 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 Gill. alias Jassi Gill, the respondent herein, was conducted at 82, . Sunder
Nagar, New Delhi. Some secret/restricted documents ‘alongwith a Defence telephone directory connectcd with thé Army are stated’ to have been recovered from his. possession’ and he was arrested on November 19, 1983.
- ti is alleged that the respondent herein n had obtained classified -
. information. on defence matters: through the. aforesaid Jasbir . | Singh for monetary. consideration and had passed on the infor- _ mation to the U.S. Intelligence Operators. During, ‘the search
‘of the hogse of Jaspal Singh. as many as 13 ‘invitation cards from the U.S. cials for -cockfait and “dinner patties- are alleged to. have been recovered: showing the: association of the espondent
| STATE ¥. S. GILL Venkataramiah, J.) = . 997
* Fi with foreign agents as defined i in section 4 of ‘the Official Secrets Act. It is alleged thatthe respondent was paying Rs. | ,000/- per
_ month to Jasbir Singh and Rs. 1,000) per -montly to. the wife of
Jasbir Singh.
”
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.
All the accused persons including the respondent have been -committed to the Court of Sessions for the the -variops offences which are really of a serious nature.
During. the investigation, the respondent made an application for bail before the Addl. -Sessions Judge, New Dethi and it was
_ rejected in January,-1984. Then again he made another application © for bail before the Sessions Court. Before the said application
_. could be taken up, he made an application undet section 482 of the’ Criminal Procedure Code before the Hige Court of Delhi for bail. The learned Judge of the High Court who heard the bail application went into’‘the merits of the case and after holding that
_ ved, by the order of the . High Court enlarging the respondent on | . ‘ bail, the prosecution. has ~ filed this Special Leave Petition for’
the material before the Court was. insufficient to sustain ‘the conviction of the respondent proceeded to enlarge him- on bail subject to bis furnishing ; a personal - bond in. the sum of Rs: 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. It may be stated here thatehe very same learned Judge had dismissed. earlier the bail application of Jasbir Singh who was the employee of the respondent. Agerie- revoking the said order of bail.
Py
The offence punishable ‘unner section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act, 1923 with which the respondent i is charged relates to military affairs and it is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to: fourteen’ years. This Court in The State v. Captain
‘Jagjit Singh™) has indicated that the Court should exercise a°
Hy ATR 6 er me) ALR. 1962 S.C. 253 oH
998 . oo. . - SUPREME cour REPORTS - [1984] 3 s.c.r , greater degree of: care in enlarging on -bail an accused whois charged with.the offence punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act when it, relates to ‘ fhilitary affairs. T have also gone through the decisions of this Court in Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)( Nand Gudikant? Narasimhulu’& Ors. v.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradegh(® which deal with the principles’ governing the grarit of bail. It may be mentioned here that i in the last of..the .above ‘cases, the accussed had been « acquitted by the trial. court but convicted by the High Court-on
_, appeal. On a consideration: of the above three detisions, J am of the view that the Court - before. granting bail in cases involving non-bailable . offences particularly. where the trial has not yef corimenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the onence, the character of the
- secured’ at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
: similar other considerations, evidence, circumstances. which are péculiar to the accused, a ‘reasonable possibility of the. presence of the accused not being tampered with, the larger interests of the public.or the State and
' @ “
" On going thtovgh the order passéd by the High Court, 1 feel that its decision that the material collected. by the prosecutions and the evidence to be adduced at the trial would not ‘be sufficient to.
sustain a conviction appears to bea premature one in the circum- , stances of this case. Since the trial is yet to begin, I do not propose to say anything more: at this stage lest it should prejudice. . _ either the accused’ or the prosecution than observipg that. ona
\ persual of the complaint anti the other material available in the case, it cannot reasonably be stated that. the prosecution case against the respondent is such ‘that _it. can bethrown out at the threshold. It appears that a prima facie. case is made out against __ the respondent. The gravity of the offences is quite obvious.
They relate to the security of the- State, Espionage and intelli- . .
gence are utilised to pass on information regarding military plans, equipment, ‘technical advances etc. of one country to another.
Naturally passing on of such information from our country toa- . foreiga country is bourid to be most harmful to our country. The:
() [1978]2S.C.R. 358. °Q) (1978) 2S.C-R: 371.
STATE y. S. GILL (Venkataramiah, J.) 999 persons accused alongwith the respondent are admittedly ex-mili- ‘tary men.well versed in. military affairs who are capable of esta- blishing bridges with thé sensitive sections of the defence services.
The respondent is also alleged: to be having some dealings with the defence department and-Jasbir Singh i$ in the employment of the respondent. The- allegations made by the prosecution which no doubt have still to be established at the trial suggest that
" the respondent and the persons accused alongwith him are persons of easy conscience in so far as the interests and security of the country are concerned... The cufrent 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 of the case do not appear to, have .been considered by the High Court. It is seen that while dismissing the bail application of Jasbir Singh on April 24, 1984, the learned Judge of the 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 while granting bail tothe respondent on May 3, 1984. ' Some of the observations made by'the High Court against the sustainabi-
_dity 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 dectded by the trial court at the end of the trial entire evidence adduced in the case.
In the circumstances, Iam of the view. that the High Court should not have enlarged the respondent on bail in the larger interests of the state. It is urged - that the Tespondent is a person | who has undergone a cardiac operation and ‘needs constant medi- cal attention. [am sure. that: the prison authorities will arrange atment of the respondent whenever the deed for it .
« for proper tre arises. © fam 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 custedy, —
The order of bail passed by the High Court was suspended by this Court by an order made on June 4, 1984 and the respon- on @ consideration of the te
- 1000 a __- 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. ,
Inthe result,’ the order’ of the High Court-enlarging the’ respondent on bail is set aside and the respondent is directed [0 © remain judical custo ‘dy until further orders to be passed bya _ competent court.
. * The trial court shall proceed to dispose of the’ case without .
feeling it itself bound by any of the observations of the High Court.
SR. oo Petition aliowed