Man Accused Of Sending Army Details To Pakistani Handlers Loses Bail: Supreme Court Says Signed Arrest Memo Told Him Why, With No Prejudice Shown

The respondent was arrested in connection with allegations that he transmitted sensitive military information to Pakistani intelligence handlers, in offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The State’s case was that the respondent was informed of the factual basis for his arrest, which was recorded in a signed Arrest Memo; his brother was also informed of the arrest.

At remand, the respondent was represented by counsel, who opposed police custody on the merits but did not object to the communication of the arrest grounds.

The Sessions Court rejected bail, but the High Court granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that the grounds had not been furnished in writing.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 require an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest so that they can seek legal advice, oppose remand, and pursue legal remedies; the information must be sufficient to explain why the person was arrested.

The Court applied Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan for the principles that the requirement serves a substantive purpose and that alleged procedural lapses are assessed by reference to demonstrable prejudice; in the absence of such prejudice, a defect in the mode of communication does not automatically invalidate custody or entitle an accused to bail.

The Court also considered the principles in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

In deciding regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, courts must consider the applicable bail factors, including the gravity of the accusation, the potential punishment, risks of absconding or evidence tampering, and public interest.

The Court found that the respondent had been told the factual basis of his arrest and that the signed Arrest Memo detailed the alleged transmission of strategically sensitive information; the record also showed prior notices concerning the investigation and communication of the arrest to his brother.

The respondent was legally represented at remand, did not raise any complaint about the communication of grounds, and the Magistrate recorded that he appeared to have been apprised of them.

Applying the prejudice-oriented approach, the Court found no demonstrated prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend.

It held that the High Court had treated the alleged defect as an automatic ground for bail, without adequately considering the relevant bail factors and the gravity of the allegations.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and cancelled the respondent’s bail.

The respondent was directed to surrender before the trial court or investigating agency within two weeks, failing which the State was directed to take him into custody in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or the case.