While cancelling the bail granted to an accused booked for transmitting sensitive military intelligence to foreign handlers belonging to a Pakistani intelligence agency, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural defect in the mode of service cannot invalidate detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting national security and sovereign integrity.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal directed against the impugned judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court whereby the respondent was enlarged on regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 35 and 96 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “As affirmed in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and State of Karnataka (supra), the constitutional framework requires that the arrestee be informed of the grounds of arrest but does not insist upon written communication as an indispensable formality irrespective of the attendant circumstances. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural defect in the mode of service cannot ipso facto invalidate detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting national security and sovereign integrity.”

Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare represented the Appellant while Advocate Saurabh Soni represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, CID (BI), Post Pokhran, Jaisalmer, had received intelligence information indicating that suspect Jhabra Ram (respondent) was in contact with foreign handlers belonging to a Pakistani intelligence agency and was actively transmitting sensitive military intelligence regarding the Indian Army in exchange for financial benefits. Prior to registration of the FIR, statutory notices were issued under Section 8(1) of the OSA and served upon the respondent. Upon completion of preliminary inquiry and technical analysis establishing that the respondent was operating a WhatsApp number and transmitting sensitive military photographs, videos, and strategic troop movement details in Pokhran and Jaisalmer to Pakistani intelligence handlers in exchange for financial consideration, an FIR was registered.

The respondent was formally arrested. The respondent was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the respondent’s legal counsel opposed police custody remand on merits. After the remand, the respondent’s application for regular bail was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that the detailed grounds recorded in the signed Arrest Memo constituted complete compliance with Section 471 BNSS, and non-furnishing of a separate written document could not be a ground to enlarge the respondent on bail. The respondent thereafter approached the High Court, culminating in the impugned order enlarging him on bail.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent was fully cognizant of the grounds for his apprehension and was effectively represented by counsel at the stage of remand. According to the Bench, the substantive mandate of Article 22(1) stood meaningfully fulfilled, with no demonstrable prejudice having been suffered.

The Bench held that the High Court fell into error in treating an alleged procedural irregularity as an automatic ground for grant of regular bail, while completely ignoring the gravity of the offences under Sections 339 and 940 of the OSA, 1923, and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the BNS, as well as the material collected during investigation and placed on record. “In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in enlarging the Respondent on regular bail”, it added.

Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench cancelled the regular bail granted to the respondent.

Cause Title: State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1169)

Appearance

Appellant: Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, AAG Padmesh Mishra, AOR Udaya Kumar Sagar

Respondent: Advocate Saurabh Soni, AOR Anupam Singh, Advocates Mannat Singh, Pavan Vashishth, Kratiney Goel, Abhyudai Mehrotra, Sanjeet Kumar Thakur, Chandra Prakash

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice MM SundreshJustice Prasanna B. Varale

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.