Y+ Security Communication To Intended Beneficiary Not Prima Facie An Official Secret: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail

Case Name: Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Pathak v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 02 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-33214-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, at the bail stage, it was not evident how a communication regarding extension of Y+ security cover to the petitioner himself would fall within the ambit of an “official secret” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared to be the intended beneficiary and lawful recipient of the security-related information.

Summary: The petitioner filed his first regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, in FIR No.136 dated 20.05.2026, registered under Sections 316(5) and 238 BNS, Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2008, at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda.

The prosecution alleged that a confidential communication dated 11.05.2026, issued by the ADGP Security, Chandigarh regarding provision of security to the petitioner, was unauthorisedly shared by an unidentified police official with the petitioner and was allegedly misused by him.

The petitioner argued that he was a whistleblower who had exposed corruption and maladministration, and that the case was registered to victimise him. It was submitted that he had merely relied upon the communication while seeking implementation of directions for grant of Y+ security.

The Court noted that there was no prima facie material to show that the petitioner had disclosed the communication in the public domain or used it in a manner prejudicial to the interests protected under the Official Secrets Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than one month and eight days, the investigation qua him was substantially complete, and further custodial interrogation was not required.

Decision: The petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds and compliance with conditions imposed by the Court.