Delhi High Court grants bail to journalist accused of spying, passing sensitive information to Chinese intelligence

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted default bail to journalist Rajeev Sharma who is accused of spying and passing sensitive information to Chinese intelligence (Rajeev Sharma vs State)..The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna. .The accused journalist, Rajeev Sharma, was arrested by Delhi Police in September 2020 for alleged commission of offences under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act..As per Delhi Police's case, Sharma indulged in procurement of confidential/sensitive documents/material and information and its subsequent handover to Chinese Intelligence officers. .It is alleged that Sharma was in contact with certain Chinese officers namely Michael, Xou and George through emails, Telegram, Whatsapp etc..Sharma is also said to have received illegal funds/remuneration through illegal means/shell companies operated by the Chinese nationals..Delhi Police has claimed that it has found several articles and some sensitive/confidential documents related to Indian Defence department at the instance of Rajeev Sharma..Last month, Sharma had filed a plea before the trial court seeking default bail in terms of Section 167(2) CrPC. .The bail was refused on the ground that the time period of filing the chargesheet in this offence was 90 days. .Aggrieved by the order, Sharma moved the High Court. .The State defended the order on the ground that where there is no minimum punishment prescribed and the maximum punishment is more than 10 years, the chargesheet can be filed beyond 60 days but before 90 days from the date of arrest. .The High Court, however, opined that the words “not less than 10 years” occurring in Section 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC referred to imprisonment being of 10 years or more i.e. it would cover only those cases for which the punishment and imprisonment would be for a clear period of 10 years or more..Relying on a series of judgments, the court said,."..the words “not less than” occurring in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. must be given their natural and obvious meaning which is to say, not below the minimum threshold and in case of Section 167 Cr.P.C. these words must relate to the offence punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 10 years.".The court held that although the Official Secret Acts entails a punishment which might extend to 14 years, the offences in question did not not prescribe any minimum period of sentence and, therefore, did not pass the test of a clear period of 10 years or more. .The Court concluded that Sharma was entitled to default bail as the maximum period of investigation and the order refusing bail to Sharma was illegal. .Default bail was ultimately allowed on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and one surety of the like amount. .Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala with advocates Aditya Singh, Akshat Goel, Amish Aggarwala, Kuldeep Jauhari, Rajat Bhatia, Karan Ahuja, Anubhav Tyagi appeared for Sharma. .State was represented by standing counsel Rahul Mehra, additional standing counsel Rajesh Mahajan, APP Amit Ahlawat and advocates Jyoti Babbar, Chaitnaya Gosain. .[Read the order]