The Delhi High Court has refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of procuring classified military documents and facilitating their alleged transmission to an official of the Pakistan High Commission, holding that the prosecution material warranted continued judicial scrutiny in view of the sensitive nature of the information involved.
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the bail application filed by Habib Ur Rahman, who was arrested in July 2021 in a case registered under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution alleges that Rahman acted as an intermediary between co-accused Naik Clerk Paramjeet Kumar and Rana Muhammad Qasim Zia, stated to be an official of the Pakistan High Commission. Documents recovered from Rahman allegedly included material relating to military training, the operationalisation of the Armed Forces Special Operations Division (AFSOD), intelligence information and other records classified as confidential or restricted.
The Army authorities reportedly verified the documents as genuine, classified and sensitive.
“The gravity of the present case lies not in the statutory label alone, but in the nature of the documents allegedly procured, their asserted source, and their intended destination,” the Court observed.
The Court clarified that allegations involving national security do not automatically oust judicial scrutiny of a bail plea. It emphasised that the seriousness of an accusation under the Official Secrets Act, or the possibility of a substantial sentence, cannot by itself determine whether bail should be granted.
However, the material cited by the prosecution went beyond the mere recovery of documents or disclosure statements made by co-accused persons, the Court noted.
The State relied on the recovery and authentication of the documents, financial transactions referred to in the chargesheet, telephone records, subscriber details and the statement of Rahman’s employee, Mohd. Arif, who allegedly delivered documents to the Pakistan High Commission on Rahman’s instructions.
The prosecution also relied on material concerning Rahman’s alleged association with co-accused persons and his access to an Army establishment through business dealings.
The Court held that, at the bail stage, it was not required to conclusively determine the admissibility or evidentiary weight of each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. Undertaking such an exercise would risk conducting a premature assessment of the evidence before the trial court.
Rahman’s counsel argued that the seriousness of the allegations could not, in itself, justify continued incarceration. It was also submitted that the documents were already in the custody of the Court, substantially reducing the possibility of their being tampered with.
The defence further relied on the period already spent in custody, pointing out that Rahman had remained incarcerated for more than three years and that only four prosecution witnesses had been examined. It was argued that repeated requests for adjournments had contributed to the delay in the trial.
The High Court acknowledged that prolonged pre-trial detention and the pace of proceedings are relevant considerations in deciding a bail application. It also recognised that the gravity of a charge cannot justify indefinite incarceration where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period.
Nevertheless, the Court found no sufficient basis on the material before it to conclude that the progress of the trial warranted Rahman’s release. It noted that the complete order sheets of the trial court had not been placed before it, making it difficult to attribute responsibility for the pace of proceedings.
“The custody undergone is substantial; at this stage, however, it does not outweigh the prima facie assessment of the record noticed above,” the Court held.
The Court also examined Rahman’s medical condition. He is wheelchair-dependent and suffers from multiple ailments. His earlier interim medical bail had not been extended in January 2026 after consideration of a report prepared by a medical board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
On the basis of that report, the Court observed that although Rahman required medical attention, the material did not establish that the prescribed treatment could not be administered while he remained in custody or that his continued detention was medically incompatible with his condition.
“The medical record, therefore, does not by itself justify release on regular bail at this stage,” the Court said while rejecting the application.
The High Court directed the Jail Superintendent to ensure that Rahman receives all advised medical investigations, specialist consultations, physiotherapy and treatment without avoidable delay. Where any investigation or treatment is unavailable within the jail, the authorities were directed to arrange it at an appropriate government hospital.
The Court also directed the trial court to accord priority to the proceedings and endeavour to record the prosecution evidence expeditiously, while avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
The order was passed on September 25 in Habib Ur Rahman v. State Through SHO, PS Special Cell, Delhi.
The denial of bail does not amount to a determination of guilt; the allegations remain to be established in the course of trial.
The post Delhi High Court denies bail to man accused of transmitting classified military documents to Pakistan appeared first on India Legal.