NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the regular bail plea of Habib Ur Rahman, an accused in an Official Secrets Act case involving the alleged possession and transmission of classified military documents to an official at the Pakistan High Commission, holding that the material on record prima facie connected him with the chain of transmission and that his prolonged custody and medical condition did not justify his release at this stage.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed Rahman's bail application, observing that the seriousness of the charges, the nature of the sensitive documents allegedly procured, and their intended destination weighed against granting him relief.
"The gravity of the offence is an important consideration, but it does not relieve the Court of the duty to assess the case on its own facts. An allegation bearing upon national security calls for a close scrutiny; it does not place the matter beyond the Court's bail jurisdiction," the Delhi High Court said in its order passed on September 25.
Rahman was arrested on July 14, 2021, in connection with an FIR registered at the Crime Branch police station under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, along with provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to criminal breach of trust, destruction of evidence, theft, house trespass, criminal conspiracy and common intention.
According to the prosecution, Rahman was apprehended with copies of documents concerning military training, the operationalisation of the Armed Forces Special Operations Division (AFSOD), an intelligence summary and other military material marked confidential or restricted.
The Army authorities subsequently verified the documents as genuine, classified and sensitive. The Crime Branch claimed that Rahman was not merely a recipient of the documents but acted as an intermediary between co-accused Naik Clerk Paramjeet Kumar and Rana Muhammad Qasim Zia, stated to be an official of the Pakistan High Commission.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution relied on the recovery of classified military documents and their authentication by Army authorities, financial transactions cited in the chargesheet, mobile phone and call detail records, and the statement of Rahman's employee, Mohd. Arif, who allegedly delivered documents at the Pakistan High Commission on Rahman's instructions.
It also relied on subscriber details of a SIM card allegedly procured in the name of the employee, with Rahman's number furnished as the alternate contact, besides his alleged access to the Army establishment through business dealings and association with co-accused Paramjeet Kumar.
In his bail plea, Rahman had sought release on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, delay in conclusion of the trial and his medical condition. His counsel submitted that he had undergone more than three years and four months of actual custody, the investigation was complete, and the evidence was largely documentary and already in the custody of the prosecution or the court.
It was also pointed out that Rahman had remained on interim bail from April 2024 until he surrendered on February 6, 2026, without any allegation of absconding, approaching a witness or tampering with evidence.
His counsel further submitted that only four witnesses had been examined so far and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, making his continued detention punitive. However, the Delhi High Court found that the latest nominal roll recorded three years, four months and 13 days of actual custody as of September 18, 2026. It acknowledged that Rahman's compliance with the conditions of interim bail and the absence of any allegation of misuse of liberty weighed in his favour, but held that these considerations did not outweigh the prima facie assessment of the prosecution material.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments recognising the right to bail in cases involving prolonged incarceration and delayed trials, the Delhi High Court observed that the seriousness of a charge could not justify detention for an indeterminate period when a trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
"The custody undergone is substantial; at this stage, however, it does not outweigh the prima facie assessment of the record noticed above," the order said.
The High Court also considered Rahman's medical condition, stating that the latest medical report recorded that he was wheelchair-dependent, required assistance with daily activities and suffered from post-traumatic paraplegia, left upper limb paresis, neurogenic bladder and other ailments.
The report further recorded that he was receiving treatment and follow-up care at Safdarjung Hospital, Dr BSA Hospital, G.B. Pant Hospital and other specialist departments, and described his general medical condition as sick.
However, the High Court observed that the medical report did not state that the prescribed treatment could not be provided in custody or that continued incarceration was medically incompatible with his present condition. "The medical record, therefore, does not by itself justify release on regular bail at this stage," the order said.
Dismissing the bail application, the Delhi High Court directed the trial court to accord due priority to the matter and endeavour to record the prosecution evidence expeditiously. It also directed that unnecessary adjournments should not be granted to either side.
Justice Narula further directed the jail superintendent to ensure that all investigations, specialist consultations, physiotherapy and other prescribed treatment were provided without avoidable delay, with treatment unavailable in jail to be arranged at an appropriate government hospital.
It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not be construed as an expression on the merits of the prosecution's case.