The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man accused of spying for a Pakistan High Commission official [Habib Ur Rahman Vs State].
The accused man, Habib Ur Rahman, was allegedly found in possession of sensitive documents pertaining to military training and other material marked as “confidential." He was also accused of passing secret and sensitive military information to an official in the Pakistan High Commission by acting as an intermediary.
An FIR was registered against Rahman and he was arrested in 2021 on charges of spying under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Rahman, who is wheelchair-bound and suffering with several ailments, was previously granted medical bail. In January this year, the Court refused to extend his interim medical bail and said that he can instead apply for regular bail.
In the order passed on September 25, Justice Sanjeev Narula refused to grant regular bail to the accused, after noting the seriousness of the allegations against him.
“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 Court said.
Rahman's counsel had stated that the seriousness of the accusations alone cannot be a ground to deny bail. He also stated that since the confidential documents are already in the custody of the Court, the possibility of tampering with evidence is remote.
The Court acknowleged that Rahman had spent over three years in jail. It also noted that the seriousness of a criminal charge cannot legitimise detention for an indefinite period when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
However, it held that the circumstances involved in the present case warranted a different approach, since charges have already been framed by the trial court and the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence.
"The facts here are materially different. Charges have been framed and prosecution evidence has begun," it held.
The Court also took note of the argument that only four witnesses have been examined and that the prosecution has repeatedly sought adjournments. The Court observed that this was a relevant factor while examining whether bail should be granted, but observed that there was nothing on record to persuade it to grant bail based on the pace of the trial proceedings.
"The complete Trial Court order sheets are not before this Court, and responsibility for the pace of the proceedings cannot fairly be assigned on the present record. The custody undergone is substantial; at this stage, however, it does not outweigh the prima facie assessment of the record noticed above," the Court said.
The Court also considered the medical condition of Rahman. It observed that in January 2026, extension of medical bail was denied to him after considering a report of a Medical Board constituted by AIIMS. From the AIIMS report, the Court noted that required medical treatment can be provided to Rahman in jail.
“The report does not, however, state that the treatment advised cannot be provided in custody or that continued incarceration is medically incompatible with his present condition," the Court observed.
The Court, therefore, refused to grant regular bail to Rahman.
“The medical record, therefore, does not by itself justify release on regular bail at this stage,” the Court held, while dismissing Rahman's bail plea.
The Court directed the Jail Superintendent to ensure that advised medical investigation, specialist consultation, physiotherapy and treatment is provided to Rahman in jail.
Advocates V Madhukar, Rakesh Sharma, Knishka Bhatt, Neeraj Kumar, Sakshi and Vikrant Chauhan appeared for Rahman.
Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan with advocate Narendra Kumar appeared for the State.
[Read order]