At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Defense Personnel's Bail Denied in National Security Compromise Case, Says High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the bail application of Harpreet Singh, a defense personnel, in a case involving serious allegations of compromising national security and sharing secret information. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, highlighted the gravity of the accusations against the petitioner.

The court observed, "Prima facie there are very grave, serious and specific allegations against the petitioner of having supplied critical information and photographs pertaining to various army installations to the co-accused who in turn supplied it to Pakistan for which they all received money." The decision emphasized the potential threat to the safety and security of the nation.

Harpreet Singh had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with other relevant sections. The petitioner's counsel argued that their client had been falsely implicated based on a weak disclosure statement and highlighted the lack of recovery of any narcotics. However, the court found these arguments insufficient to grant bail.

While acknowledging the absence of narcotics recovery, the court noted, "there were serious allegations against the petitioner of having compromised with the safety and security of the nation by sharing secret documents and information about various military installations/stations with co-accused." The allegations came to light when a co-accused was apprehended with heroin and a mobile phone containing critical information about army posts and other sensitive details.

The court's decision reflected its concern for national security, stating, "Given the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail." The judgment highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the potential harm caused by the compromise of sensitive information.

Date of Decision: 04.07.2023

Harpreet Singh @ Happy  VS State of Punjab

Latest Legal News