The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail plea of an Army man accused of leaking sensitive military documents to a Pakistani official. Citing grave national security concerns, the court ruled that his health issues and three-year detention do not warrant bail, while ordering an expedited trial.Justice Sanjeev Narula was dealing with the bail plea of an Army man seeking bail in an espionage case under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. He was allegedly caught with copies of sensitive documents related to military training, the operationalisation of the armed forces special operations division, and confidential military intelligence summaries.“The gravity of the present case lies not in the statutory label alone, but in the nature of the documents allegedly procured, their asserted source, and their intended destination. The documents recovered from the Applicant are stated to concern military training, a sensitive military unit, and intelligence material. The Army authorities have verified their classified character,” the court said on September 25.The order held that the petitioner’s period of custody, over three years and four months, and good conduct during interim bail count in his favour, but at this stage, they do not outweigh the seriousness of the charges.Prosecution alleges Pakistan linkThe applicant was arrested in July 2021 by the Crime Branch Police in Delhi. The prosecution alleged that he acted as a middleman and received secret military documents from a co-accused and allegedly passed them to an official at the Pakistan High Commission. The court observed that there is primary material connecting the applicant to the alleged information transmission chain, including phone records.According to the prosecution, he was caught with copies of sensitive documents related to military training, the operationalisation of the armed forces special operations division, and confidential military intelligence summaries. The Indian Army later verified these documents as authentic, classified, and sensitive.Appearing for the petitioner, advocate V Madhukar submitted that the seriousness of the accusation cannot, by itself, displace the ordinary principles governing bail. He argued that even when an offence carries a substantial maximum sentence, the court must consider the role attributed to the accused, the material against him, the period of custody, and the progress of the trial.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Army man’s income ‘not assessed’, Calcutta High Court rejects wife’s maintenance hikeHe argued that the petitioner has undergone more than three years and four months of actual custody. The investigation concluded long ago, and the evidence relied upon is largely documentary and already in the custody of the prosecution or the court.Representing the state, Assistant Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan opposed the bail and submitted that the state relied on the recovery of classified military documents from the petitioner and their authentication by the Army authorities.‘National security allegations demand scrutiny’The court noted that simply invoking the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or the threat of a 14-year maximum sentence does not automatically bar bail. However, national security allegations demand close scrutiny.It observed that the case does not rest simply on an uncorroborated allegation or a co-accused’s disclosure statement. There is primary material connecting the applicant to the alleged transmission chain, including phone records, SIM card details, financial transactions, and the statement of his employee.Story continues below this ad“An allegation bearing upon national security calls for close scrutiny; it does not place the matter beyond the court’s bail jurisdiction,” the order said. The ruling noted that the court must not perform a full evidentiary trial or evaluate admissibility at this stage.Also Read | Mobile bill Rs 1.75 lakh after Nepal trip, man secures waiver of amount, Rs 25,000 payoutRegarding the medical ground taken by the petitioner, the order said that evaluation by a nine-member AIIMS Medical Board had noted a significant discrepancy between the man’s provided medical history and the actual objective findings.While acknowledging the petitioner’s real medical issues, wheelchair dependency, and comorbidities, the court noted that his current medical report does not state that necessary treatment cannot be provided in custody or that continued detention is medically impossible.