File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Journalist accused of spying on India granted bail after 90 days

Justice Yogesh Khanna of the Delhi High Court found that the petitioner is entitled to default bail; the challan having not been filed within 60 days. The petitioner is a journalist who has been accused on spying on India for China. The matter was heard when the petitioner moved the High Court after the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed his bail application in Rajeev Sharma v. State of Delhi (NCT) [Crl. Rev. P. 363/2020 Del HC].

Indian intelligence sources received information that the petitioner, Rajeev Sharma, was in contact with foreign intelligence operatives and had been receiving money transfers from shell companies, in consideration for leaking sensitive information about India. On 14.09.2020, he was arrested and his phone seized. Over the course of the investigation, it was found that he was in possession of several documents relating to the Indian Defense department.

A report by the Director General Military Intelligence found that he was in unauthorized possession of the same, and as such, any unauthorized disclosure of its contents would be detrimental to our national security. The accused filed an application on 14.11.2020 under S.167 CrPC requesting bail as no charge sheet had been filed after 60 days of arrest. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application stating that the period of 60 days had not yet elapsed.

S.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the procedure to be followed when an investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours. Clause (2) of the Section provides that a Magistrate can detain a suspect for up to 90 days when the crime being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of above 10 years.  For all other crimes, this period cannot exceed 60 days.

The counsel for the State contended that where no minimum punishment was prescribed, but the maximum sentence was above 10 years, the charge sheet could be filed after 60 but before 90 days of imprisonment. The penalty under S.3 of the Official secrets Act is 14 years. The State argued that as this period exceeded 10 years, the Magistrate was right in keeping the petitioner in custody for longer than 60 days.

Justice Khanna looking into various precedents, noted:
This gives an answer to the issues raised in this petition that the offence must have the imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more only then Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. would be applicable. This view also finds favor in Rajeev Choudhary vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2001(5)SCC 34 wherein it was held the words not less than would mean that the imprisonment should be of 10 years or more and would cover only those cases for which the punishment and imprisonment would be for a clear period of 10 years or more.

He also considered that while the Official Secrets Act prescribed a sentence of 14 years for the offence of spying, it made no mention of a minimum sentence and thus does not pass the test of ‘clear period of 10 years’. Thus, the maximum period for detention without charge sheet in this case would be 60 days, and as such, the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is illegal. The petition was allowed as the accused was entitled to default bail.

In the present situation, the accused was found with several classified military documents. He was also found to be in contact with certain Chinese nationals, thereby clearly establishing the existence of a prima facie case. However, his guilt or innocence can only be determined after the conclusion of the trial. As such, the Court granted his bail, as a matter of procedural fairness.

Written By: Prime Legal Law Firm
Off Address: 39/2, 2nd floor, K G Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001
Phone no: +9986386002, Email: [email protected]

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...


Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

The Factories Act,1948


There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...


The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

Constitution of India-Freedom of speech ...


Explain The Right To Freedom of Speech and Expression Under The Article 19 With The Help of Dec...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly