JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J.
(1) L.D. Meena has moved this application for bail in Fir No. 242/87 under Section 359 of the Official Secrets Act (for short the ‘Act’) and Sec. 120B Ipc, P.S. Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.
(2) The petitioner along with Sita Ram Rathi and Mohd Yunus is facing trial before an Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi where charges was framed against them under Sec. 3(1) (Part-1) of the Official Secrets Act read with Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code with the allegations that between the period 1980 to 10th September, 1987 at Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sita Ram Rathi and Mohd. Yunus and with foreign agents, namely, Zaridad Khan Rauf Ahmed employees of the Pakistan Embassy for the purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy agreed to do or caused to be done illegal acts, i.e. to collect, to obtain and to communicate secret official informations, secret and classified documents pertaining to the Ministry of defense, Government of India and passed on such documents to foreign agents which were calculated to be or intended to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or the disclosure of which was likely to effect the sovereignty and integrity of India or security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States who passed on the said secret documents to known or unknown persons.
(3) According to the prosecution story on the basis of secret and reliable information against Sita Ram Rathi working as Assistant in the Ministry of Finance a surveillance was kept on him since be unauthorisedly collected documents and passed on to foreign agents which were calculated to be or might be intended to be directly or indirectly useful to foreign countries. It was found that said Sita Ram used to visit Pakistan Embassy. On the basis of secret information a surveillance was kept on Sita Ram Rathi and on that day he travelled in a three wheeler scooter and was going towards the family quarters of the Pakistan Embassy from Niti Marg and at about 8.45 P.M. three wheeler scooter was intercepted and from his search three cyclostyled sheets relating to “Engineer Bridge Regiment (PMP/PMS) War Establishment” were recovered from the left front pocket of his shirt. These documents were marked as “secret” at the top and bottom which were seized after preparing a memo.
(4) During investigation it was found that aforesaid Rathi has been meeting Mohd. Yunus and also the petitioner and the petitioner used to meet said Sita Ram Rathi outside the office and later also when they used to take liquor. It was also found that Sita Ram Rathi very often used to have telephonic conversation with the petitioner in the office and they also very often used to meet outside the office and used to talk privately. Disclosure statement was made by Sita Ram with regard to the manner in which he was getting the documents from the petitioner. It was also found during investigation that the cyclostyled copies of the documents in question Were made by the petitioner on 8th September, 1987.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner and even if he is convicted the maximum punishment could be for three years and that the petitioner has already been in custody for more than two years. It is also submitted that the case is likely to take sufficient time and so prayer has been made for bail.
(6) This application has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that the petitioner has been charged for the offence order Section 3(1) Part-1 of the Act which is punishable with imprisonment for 14 years. He has also submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the case of passing secret documents to a foreign State. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence the bail should not be allowed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions.
(7) A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner has been charged of an offence under Sec. 3(1) Part-1 of the Official Secret Act read with Sec. 120B IPC. Thus, it cannot be said that the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable for three years. Merely because the statements of seven witnesses have so far been recorded out of 38 witnesses, in my view, may not be a ground for bail to the petitioner keeping in view the seriousness of the offence with which the petitioner is charged. The learned trial Court would, however, expedite the trial.
(8) In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed.