Court Highlights Seriousness of National Security Charges, Orders Expedited Trial and Directions for Medical Care in Custody
In a significant judgment dated 25th September 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, declined the regular bail plea of Habib Ur Rahman, who was arrested in connection with the recovery of classified military documents and sensitive intelligence material. The documents pertain to military training, operational aspects of a sensitive military unit (AFSOD), and intelligence summaries. The Army authorities have authenticated these documents as genuine and classified, underscoring the gravity of the charges under the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
The accused, who has been in custody since July 14, 2021, faced charges under multiple provisions, including Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, and Sections 409, 201, 380, 381, 457, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against Habib Ur Rahman extends beyond mere possession of classified documents; it includes evidences such as subscriber details of SIM cards, call records, financial transactions, and statements indicating his role as an intermediary in the chain of transmission of sensitive information to the Pakistan High Commission.
Despite the applicant's medical condition-which includes post-traumatic paraplegia and dependency on a wheelchair-and the fact that he had been on interim bail for a substantial period without misuse of liberty, the Court observed that the medical records did not conclusively show that adequate treatment could not be provided in custody. The Court emphasized that while the seriousness of national security-related charges necessitates heightened scrutiny, it does not impose an absolute bar on bail.
The Court referred to important Supreme Court precedents such as State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and State v. Jaspal Singh Gill ((1984) 3 SCC 555), which outline considerations for bail in serious non-bailable offences, including the nature of the accusation, evidence quality, and risk of witness tampering. However, it clarified that these factors do not preclude bail if the trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time, a situation not found here as the trial had commenced with evidence being recorded.
The applicant had undergone over three years and four months of custody, with chargesheet filed and trial underway. The Court acknowledged concerns about trial delays but noted incomplete records to assign responsibility and stated that prolonged custody alone did not outweigh the prima facie material.
In light of these factors, the Court dismissed the bail application but directed the trial court to prioritize the case to avoid undue delays. It also instructed jail authorities to ensure uninterrupted medical care, specialist consultations, physiotherapy, and treatment, including arrangements at government hospitals if necessary.
The judgment reaffirms the delicate balance courts must maintain between safeguarding national security interests and protecting the rights of accused persons, especially those with significant health issues, while ensuring expeditious justice.
Bottom Line:
Bail - Official Secrets Act - Recovery of classified military documents and other corroborative material showing prima facie involvement in transmission chain - Long custody, satisfactory conduct during interim bail, and medical condition considered - However, where charges are framed, trial has commenced, and medical record does not show treatment cannot be provided in custody, regular bail can be refused while directing expeditious trial and proper medical care.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, Official Secrets Act, 1923 Sections 3 and 9, Indian Penal Code Sections 409, 201, 380, 381, 457, 120B, 34
Habib Ur Rahman v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001051
