Brijeshkumar Vikramsingh Palawat v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Official Secret Act ss. 3, 9, 13(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 197
Judgment
Mr. V.B. Koshe i/b. Mr. Sachin Deokar for the Applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 19th JUNE 2012. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant.
The Accused/Applicant is in custody from 7th February 2011, seeks bail in Crime No.42 of 2011 for an offence under Sections 3 and 9 of Official Secret Act r/w. 120(B) of I.P.C. registered at Bundgarden Police Station, Pune.
A trap was laid based on secret information wherein one Bishambhar Agarwal was spotted. Inquiring with him, personal search revealed certain documents not ordinarily 2 BA 217.12.sxw expected to be possessed by the civilian concerning details of Arm Forces including photographs were found.
In the inquiry, he disclosed name of the present Accused/Applicant.
Before arresting the Accused/Applicant on 7th February 2011, his statement was recorded on 5th February 2011, in which he has narrated affair as to how he was contacted several persons. He has allowed them to facilitate their queries for certain pay offs, he has attempted to pass on certain privileged information.
Learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant submits the information received from said Bishambhar Agarwal, reading from any corner cannot be branded to be sensational or classified information as this has been so informed in the official note by the officers. There is no sanction as is required under Section 13(3) of Official Secret Act and also under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The Accused/Applicant is languishing in custody and no purpose will be served to detain him as charge-sheet is filed. 3 BA 217.12.sxw
Learned Counsel has informed that a fabricated case is lodged, as in identical manner by the set same of officers, another FIR No. 57 of 2008 dated 15th February 2008 was registered making a case of other suspect possessing code and phone numbers of the Arm Forces.
Ordinarily, reading the set of documents recovered from Bishambhar Agarwal, no further detention of the Accused would have been warranted. However, aggravated form of situation is demonstrated by the learned APP as the Accused/applicant had in his name and use five SIM cards which he was operating and was in constant contacts at Pakistan, Nepal and Mangolia. This has been so established in the mobile call details recovered by the investigator. The Bank Account of the Accused/Applicant was verified and dis- proportionate amount in his account was noticed with credits apart from his regular salary. The contention that the Accused/Applicant was benefited by such deposit from his friends or others residing in the country, at this stage, is difficult to digest. 4 BA 217.12.sxw
The objection in respect of want of sanction under Section 13(3) of Official Secret Act and under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is incorrect as the same is dated 25 th April 2011 tender in proceedings and then cognizance was taken.
Taking survey of these facts, further evaluation of prosecution case and exploration thereof is not imperative as it will again open flood gates against the Accused/Applicant and may lead sensitive details exposed not expected for.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Official Secret Act — ss. 3, 9, 13(3); Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 197.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 19 Jun 2012. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.