Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1329 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shamsunissa @ Mariyan

2001-08-24

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT : 1. The present application has been filed by State of Rajasthan for cancellation of bail granted to accused in bail application No. 3177/2000 vide order dated 14.3.2001. The other co-accused persons have not been granted the benefit of bail. 2. The respondent and her husband Sabir @ Babu Khan are accused in FIR No. 1/2000 at Special Police Station, Jaipur registered for the offence under Section 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code. 3. The FIR was lodged against Sarva Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Mohd. Sabir @ Babu Khan, Shamsunissa @ Mariyan, Isab @ Yusuf and Idrish Khan on the allegation that they were involved in anti-national activities by passing secret information of sensitive nature to the enemy country, which could seriously jeopardise national security. The documents seized were of sensitive nature containing military information. As per case filed against the said persons including Shamsunissa alleging therein that one Pakistani National Munir Ahmed was providing funds for anti-national activities and that accused Iqbal Motiwala was instrumental in making payment to Pak Agent Munir Ahmed. 4. The accused respondent moved application for bail before the learned trial Court, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 4.7.2000. However, the bail application of accused respondent was allowed on the ground that the bail application No. 114/2001, filed by one Iqbal Motiwala, was allowed on the ground of interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923. The accused had submitted that the respondent is not a Govt. servant and he was not living outside India and therefore he was entitled to be released on bail. The order passed on 14.3.2001 in bail application No. 3177/2000. 5. It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the State/petitioner that the Act applies to all of the citizens of India and applies also to the servants of Government and to citizens of India outside India, therefore, it cannot be said that it applies to only those persons who are either Govt. servants or residents of country and living outside India. The sub-section (2) of Section 1 reads as under : "1(2) It extends to the whole of India and applies also to the servants of Government and to citizens of India outside India." 6. servants or residents of country and living outside India. The sub-section (2) of Section 1 reads as under : "1(2) It extends to the whole of India and applies also to the servants of Government and to citizens of India outside India." 6. It is clear from the applicability clause of the Act that the Act is applicable to Indian citizens as well. 7. Counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Pooran v. Rambilas and another, JT 2001 (5) SC 226, wherein it was held that the bail granted ignoring material evidence on record in a heinous crime requires to be cancelled. 8. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in case of State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 , wherein it was held that gravity of offence was quite obvious as they relate to security of the State. Espionage and intelligence were utilised to pass on information regarding military plans, equipments, technical advances etc. The bail was cancelled. 9. Similarly in case of State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 , it was held that the accused was charged for the offence under Section 3 & 5 of the Official Secrets Act and the bail should have been refused. The bail was cancelled. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the impugned order and the documents available on record, I am of the opinion that the accused even if he is not Govt. servant or the citizen of India living outside but as resident of India is equally liable to be proceeded under the offences, therefore the bail granted to accused respondent on the pretext that he is neither Govt. servant nor Indian citizen living outside needs to be cancelled forthwith. 11. I, therefore, order that the bail granted to accused respondent Shamsunissa @ Mariyan in FIR No. 1/2000 in bail Application No. 177/2000 vide order dated 14.3.2001 is cancelled. The accused respondent shall be arrested forthwith and be sent in judicial custody. 12. With the above observations, the application of the State is allowed.Application allowed.