Espionage Allegations Without Evidence: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in Official Secrets Act Case
Case Name: Davender Singh @ Davinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 01 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-56269-2025
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations under Section 152 BNS and the Official Secrets Act, holding that mere disclosure statements without corroborative evidence, absence of proof of transmission of sensitive information, and lack of prosecution sanction justified grant of bail.
Summary: The present petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 31 dated 15.05.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kaithal. The allegations against the petitioner stemmed from a disclosure statement made during custody in an earlier Arms Act case, wherein he allegedly admitted to having connections with individuals in Pakistan and sharing sensitive information relating to Indian Army movements.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had travelled to Pakistan on a religious visit and came into contact with certain individuals linked to espionage activities. It was further alleged that he maintained communication with them via social media platforms and shared confidential information, including details of army establishments.
The petitioner contended that the entire case was based solely on a disclosure statement without any independent corroboration. It was argued that his mobile phone had already been seized in the earlier FIR and no incriminating material was recovered in the present case. The alleged video of army vehicles was neither proven to have been shared nor linked to any specific time period. It was further emphasized that there was no evidence of motive, radicalization, or pecuniary gain.
A significant argument raised was that prosecution under the Official Secrets Act requires prior sanction from the Central Government, which had not been granted despite lapse of several months. Consequently, the trial itself could not commence.
The State, despite asserting communication with a suspected ISI agent, failed to produce any material showing that sensitive information had actually been transmitted or that the alleged recipient was indeed an intelligence operative. The Court also noted the absence of any evidence regarding motive or benefit.
Decision: The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. It observed that the prosecution had failed to substantiate its allegations with any concrete evidence beyond the disclosure statement. The absence of proof regarding transmission of sensitive information, lack of clarity on the nature of the alleged material, and failure to establish motive significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court further noted that the mandatory sanction under the Official Secrets Act had not been obtained, thereby preventing commencement of trial. Considering the petitioner’s clean antecedents, period of custody, and arguable legal issues, the Court deemed it appropriate to release him on bail, subject to conditions that he would not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial.