LexTHE STATE versus CAPTAIN JAGJIT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1'61
-4--
s.,,,.,..,.u ..
. .;•
'
........ --
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
THE STATE
1.1 •
CAPTAIN JAGJ1T SIN"GH
(1962]
( K. N. WA~CHOO, K. C. DAS GtrPTA nn<l
.
J. c. SHAH, J,J. )
Boil-O!Jene< bailable under on• 8'ction qnd m:m·bai/abl<
un<(u anoth•r-Proc<dure-In4ian Official Srcrtts Act, 1923
(XlX of 1923), as. 3, 5.
The respondent who was a fonner Captain of the Indian
Army and was employed in the delegation in India of a Prench
Company \\'as prostcuted aton_g' with t\\'O 01hers for co.nspiracy
and pas~ing on Official SeCrets to a for,.ign agency under s.s.3
and S of the Official Secrrt< Act. llis application for bail was
rejocted by the Se'5ions Judge but the Hi.eh Court allowed bail
on the ground int.r a/ia .. that his case might fall only under s 5
which was bailable and not s. 3 which was not bailable.
It did nnt exprc~s any opinion \•;hcther th(" case fell under s. 5
or s. 3 in view of the co:nmitment proceedings \vhich ,,·ere
goin~ on at the fone.
On appeal by the· State.
Htld, that the High Court should have proceeded to
deal with the application for bail on the assumption that the
offence v.•as under s. 3 and thererore not bailable.
It :should
have then taken into ar.count the various considerations such as,
nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of tbe
evidence, circumst.ances pCculiar to the accused, possibility of
his .Jhsconding, tampering with \vitnesses larger interests of the
pulilic and the State __ and
~imilar other considerations \vhich
arise when bail is asked for in a non-bailable offence.
The fact that the applicant for bail might not abscond
was not by itself a ~ufri.:ient ground for grantini IJail.
CRIMINAL A1•PF.LLATF. ,foRISJJIC1'IO~: Criminal.
Appeal Xo. ll8 of 1961.
Appeal Ly special leave from the judgment.
anrlordcr dated May JO, 19ol, of the Pnnjah High
Court (Circuit Bench) at DPlhi in Criminal Misc.
No. '.?55-D of J!J(il.
C. K. D11phtary,
8olicif-Or.General of India,
Eepin Behari u1l, q'. /If. Sw and R. H. Dhebar, for
the appellant.
N. C.
Chatterjee,
!If eluir Singli Chadd<.1h,
A. F;. Nag and/. S. Sawhney, for the respondent.
,3,l;'_C:B,.
> S(f PREME) CQ{;J'RTJ~:Jl!OO,RT$
6~3
.• ·, ·J!J1il.·Septerriberr J4. The-c-Judgment of the
Court was deliv_ered by ; .
. ,: :
.. · ..
.
. . WANCHOO, ,J.---:The respondent . Jagjjt Singh
along with two others was prosecuted for conspiracy
and also under ss. 3 and 5 of the Indian Offi9ial
Secrets Act, No. XIX of 192:3, (hereinil>f~er called
the A,ct).
The respornlent is a 'former captain of
the. Indian Army and 'vas at the t.iml' of his arrest
in December, 1960, employed in the delegation in
India of a French company. The other two persons
were employed in the Ministry of Defence and the
Army Headquarters, New Delhi. The case against
the three persons was· that they in conspiracy had
passedon official secrets to a foreign agency,
The respondent applied for bail to the Sessions
Judge; but his appliell.tion was rejected by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Thereupon the
respondent applied under s. 498 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to the High Court, and the main
contention urged before the High Court was that
on the facts disclosed the case against the respon-
dent could only be under ~. 5 of the Act, which is
bailable and not under s. 3 which is not bailable.
The High Court was of the view that it was hardly
possible at that stage to go .into the question
whether s. 3 or s. 5 applied ; but that there was
substance in the suggestion on behalf ·of the 'res-
pondent that the nrntter was arguable. Conseqnently
the High Court took the view that as the other two
persons prosecuted along with the respondent had
been released on bail, the respondent should also be
so released, particul11rly a> it appeared that the trial
was .·likely to takp a considerable time ancl the
respondent was not likely to absconu. The High
Court, therefore, allowed bail to the respondent.
Thereupon the State made an IJ-pplication for special
leave which was granted.
The bail granted to the
rf(spondent was cancelled by an interim order by
t~~Coµrt, and the matter has now come up,· before
u~ fµp final disposal.
·
There. is jp our ,opinion .a basic error in. the
o~qe~·,qf,thJ.J.High QQljj)t~ :i Wb.enev.Qf.,JJ,n &pplioation.
for bail is made to a court, the first question that
1961
v .
Cap(ai•J~jit $iTlfk
• <-----..!,...!..
··.·'
--
v.
Cft1ai"'1'J<1Jj# Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.