Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 756 (HP)

Ghanshyam Guleria v. State of H. P

2012-10-30

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 2/2011 dated 27.1.2011, registered at Police Station, CID, Bharari, Shimla, under Sections 3,5,9 of the Officials Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 120(B) IPC, 1860. 2. It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case. The petitioner was arrested on 31.1.2011 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner retired from Army as Subedar Major on 31.8.2010. The prosecution case is that petitioner in June/July, 2010 had received a telephone call from Jais Ram an ex-serviceman, who motivated the petitioner to collect sensitive information of the army areas and promised a salary of `8,000/- per month. The further allegation is that petitioner talked to foreign agent many times during September, 2009 to January 2010 and had received `6,000/-in lieu of information passed to suspected foreign agent. 3. It has been stated that petitioner and two others had filed Cr.WP No.31 of 2011 which was dismissed on 12.1.2012. The High Court has held that the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily try the offences under Official Secrets Act unless a Magistrate of Ist Class is specially empowered by State Government to try any offence under the Official Secrets Act. 4. It has been stated that petitioner filed bail application on 18.7.2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Amrik Singh co-accused has been released on bail by the High Court in Cr.MP( M) No.877 of 2012 on 24.9.2012. The petitioner filed another bail application which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 10.10.2012. 5. It has been stated that the challan has been submitted in the Court but till date no charge has been framed. One co-accused Bagwan Dass has been hospitalized and therefore, the case is being adjourned. The petitioner is in custody for about one year and eight months. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. There is no legal evidence for what purpose `6,000/-was allegedly deposited in the account of petitioner by Amrik Singh. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 6. The status report has been filed. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. There is no legal evidence for what purpose `6,000/-was allegedly deposited in the account of petitioner by Amrik Singh. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 6. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that a secret information was received that Bhagwan Dass ex-serviceman serving in the Himachal Government had been supplying secret information relating to army to some foreign agent. The activities of said Bhagwan Dass were put under electronic surveillance. On 26.1.2011 an information was received that Bhagwan Dass after collecting secret information had been preserving such information in his office and at his residence and thereafter he had been supplying such information to foreign agent on telephone and in lieu there of he had been receiving money. 7. The police party headed by Tenjin Shashni had obtained a warrant from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra for searching the house of Bhagwan Dass. The house of Bhagwan Dass was searched and a diary with print “1995” was taken into possession. On perusal of the diary it was found to contain some army related secret information. Bhagwan Dass disclosed that 2/3 months ago one Gurmeet Singh contacted him on his mobile phone and asked him to supply army related information on payment. He had been supplying information to Gurmeet Singh. A ruka was sent for registration of the case and an FIR was registered. 8. It has come in the investigation that in the bank account of Rajesh Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass in Punjab National Bank, Nagrota Bagwan on 9.10.2010 an amount of 8,000/-from Punjab National Bank, Rakhsosh Bihar, Champaran and on 27.1.2011 an amount of `6,000/-from School Bazar, Mandi were deposited. It has been found that amount in the Punjab National Bank, School Bazar, Mandi was deposited by Amrik Singh. It has also been found that Amrik Singh had deposited in the Punjab National Bank, School Bazar, Mandi `11,400/-twice in the name of Smt. Puniya Devi and `6,000/-in the account of Ghanshyam Guleria. It has been found that in the year 2009-2010 transactions worth `80,00,000/-had taken place in the bank account of Amrik Singh. 9. Ghanshyam Guleria joined investigation on 31.1.2011. It has been found that in the year 2009-2010 transactions worth `80,00,000/-had taken place in the bank account of Amrik Singh. 9. Ghanshyam Guleria joined investigation on 31.1.2011. It was found that Ghanshyam Guleria had been supplying information to foreign agent Jais Ram, his calls details from 1.1.2010 to 31.1.2011 were obtained. Ghanshyam Guleria was arrested on 31.1.2011. 10. Ghanshyam Guleria retired from army on 31.8.2010 as Subedar Major (Honorary Captain). Ghanshyam Guleria from 28.9.2010 to 25.1.2011 on 38 different occasions had talked to foreign agent Jais Ram. On 27.1.2011 Amrik Singh had deposited `6,000/-in the account of Ghanshyam Guleria. On search of the house of Ghanshyam Guleria at Chandi Mandir, it has been found that in various pass books `20,00,000/-have been deposited in the account of Ghanshyam Guleria. The submission has been made for rejecti on of the bail application. 11. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that an amount of `6,000/-was deposited by co-accused Amrik Singh in the account of petitioner on 27.1.2011. The further allegation is that the petitioner had been in contact with foreign agent Jais Ram. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had been supplying army secrets to foreign agent for consideration. It has been alleged that in the various pass books of the petitioner huge deposits have been shown. 12. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 23.4.2011. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till now charge has not been framed and petitioner is in custody since 31.1.2011. The transcript of the talks between petitioner and foreign agent has not been shown. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused Bhagwan Dass is under treatment and for that reason the case is being adjourned for framing of charge. It is not certain when the trial will conclude. 13. The prosecution has shown apprehension that in the event of bail the petitioner will not be available for trial but it has not been denied that petitioner is resident of Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra. The co-accused Amrik Singh has already been released on bail by the High Court on 24.9.2012. There is uncertainty of time for conclusion of trial in view of illness of Bhagwan Dass. The apprehension of the prosecution that in the event of bail the petitioner will influence the witnesses is not supported by corroborative material. The co-accused Amrik Singh has already been released on bail by the High Court on 24.9.2012. There is uncertainty of time for conclusion of trial in view of illness of Bhagwan Dass. The apprehension of the prosecution that in the event of bail the petitioner will influence the witnesses is not supported by corroborative material. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 14. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.2/2011 dated 27.1.2011, registered at Police Station, CID, Bharari, Shimla, under Sections 3, 5, 9 of the Officials Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 120(B) IPC, 1860 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `2,00,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the condition that the petitioner shall not terrorize any prosecution witnesses, he shall regularly appear in the Court during trial, unless his presence is exempted by the learned trial Court. He shall not leave the country without permission of the learned trial Court. 15. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’.