This articles has been written by Ms. Khyati Kanoje, a student studying B.A.LL.B (H.) from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management, NMIMS, Indore. The author is a 3rd year law student. 

This case talks about bailable and non-bailable offences. Bailable and non-bailable offences have been defined in section 2(a) of CrPC, 19–. A comprehensive list as to what offences would be bailable and what would be non-bailable has been provided in the Fist Schedule of CrPC.

Facts of the case:

Respondent Jagjit Singh, along with two others, faced charges under the Indian Official Secrets Act’s Sections 3 and 5. The prosecution argued that the three conspired to reveal sensitive government information to an outside organisation.

The respondent asked the Sessions Judge for bail, but the Additional Sessions Judge in Delhi denied his request. The respondent then filed an application with the High Court pursuant to Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the primary argument being that the respondent’s case could only be under Section 5 of the Act, which allows for bail, and not under Section 3, which does not.

The High Court decided to release the respondent on bail since the other two defendants in the case had already been granted bail and because it looked that the trial would take a long time and the respondent was not likely to escape.

Issues:

• Should the High Court’s ruling be overturned.

• Whether or not this appears to meet the criteria for a Section 3 case.

Judgement

The contributions of K.N. Wanchoo, J

A court’s first order of business when an accused person requests bail is to determine whether or not the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted is one for which bail can be granted. If the crime is one for which bail can be granted under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the matter of bail will be decided without further inquiry. If, however, the crime is not one for which bail can be granted, then the court will need to take into account other factors before making a decision.

While the court has broad discretion under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to decide whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offense, the nature of the offence is one factor to consider. If the offence is of a nature in which bail should not be granted due to its seriousness, the court should refuse bail.

Decision

Assuming that the case occurred under Section 3 of the Act, the High Court should have considered the matter even if it did not deem it proper at that stage to assess whether the offence was under Section 3 or Section 5.

An offence detrimental to the security or interests of the State is established by Section 3 of the Act. The crime obviously poses a serious threat to national security or other State interests.

Since the charges against the respondent involve the government’s armed forces, it appears at first glance that he faces a maximum sentence of fourteen years in jail if he is found guilty. We do not believe that the court’s discretion, which certainly vests in it pursuant to Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should have been employed in favour of the respondent under the present circumstances, given the seriousness of the conduct.

While it is true that two of the other defendants in the case were released on bail before the commitment order, the respondent’s case is clearly distinguishable from theirs in that the prosecution’s case is that the respondent is the one in contact with the foreign agency. Even if the respondent is unlikely to flee, that alone is not enough to convince the court to release him on bond in this situation. The respondent’s trial is also unlikely to take too long because it has been transferred to the Court of Session. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the High Court’s ruling granted bail to the respondent was incorrect and must be reversed.  

Analysis

This case basically deals with how to get bail by stating certain conditions. In State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, the Supreme Court outlined key elements that belie the determination on bail.

A judge must weigh many factors before deciding whether or not to grant bail for a non-bailable offense, including the nature and seriousness of the crime, the nature of the evidence, the accused’s unique circumstances, the reasonable possibility that the accused’s presence will not be secured at the trial, the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, the larger interests of the public or the State, and so on. 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier findings in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), which stated that the overriding considerations in granting bail in sections 437(1) and 439 are the nature and gravity of the circumstances under which the accused committed the offence, the accused’s position and status with the victim and witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused committing the offence again. Cr. P.C. are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and status of the accused person with respect to the victim and witnesses; the likelihood of the person charged with an offence fleeing justice; the possibility of jeopardizing one’s own life; the possibility of a recurrence of the offence; the likelihood of the accused person tampering with witnesses; the history of the case; etc., which cannot be set out exclusively are.

Based on the facts of each individual case, the Supreme Court determined in Pappu Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation that there is no hard and fast rule for granting bail.

REFERENCES:

• State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622.
• Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 AIR 179.
• Pappu Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation Appeal (crl.) 1172 of 2006.
• https://mylegalpartner.wordpress.com/2019/06/11/state-v-captain-jagjit-singh/ – :~:text=Captain Jagjit Singh,-June 11, 2019&text=Facts%3A – The respondent Jagjit Singh,secrets to a foreign agency.