[Navy info leak] Delhi court says CBI filed 'incomplete' chargesheet, grants bail to three accused

Three held for leaking 'sensitive' national defence information were recently granted bail by a Delhi court, which held that the chargesheet filed in the case was “incomplete” as it only mentioned offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and not the Official Secrets Act. The investigation in the matter was under both the laws (CBI v. S J Singh, etc)..In an order passed on November 18, Special Judge Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj noted that the chargesheet filed before the Court was incomplete as there was “no mention regarding the investigation being carried under the Official Secrets Act, though the same was being carried in this case itself"..The accused persons, three men, were arrested in the first week of September this year for allegedly leaking information about the Indian Navy about tenders to private persons for illegal gratification.It came on record that the investigation agency had sought their police and judicial custody, and requested the Court to keep the case documents in a sealed cover as its investigation had “indicated leakage of sensitive material pertaining to defence of the country”..In a reply filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to the previous bail applications of the accused, it was stated that the investigation under the Official Secrets Act was underway and the Ministry of Defence had been requested to file a formal complaint under the law, and a supplementary chargesheet would have followed..The counsel appearing for the accused raised a plea that since the chargesheet under the Official Secrets Act had not been filed, their clients were entitled to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as the 60 day period from the date of arrest to filing of a chargesheet presribed in the proviso had expired on November 2, 2021..The Court accepted this argument, observing that “There is no dispute that attracted provisions of Official Secrets Act prescribing the punishment upto 14 years with no lower limit of the sentence are covered by proviso (a) (ii) of section 167 (2) of CrPC. The chargesheet in the matter as such ought to have been filed within 60 days in the matter.” .In the bail order, the Court underlined that the prosecution had admitted that no separate First Information Report (FIR) was registered under the Official Secrets Act, and that the investigation for the offences under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act was taken up in this case itself.The investigating agency had intended to file a supplementary chargesheet and therefore its case was not stated to be the one where allegations under the Official Secrets Act were being investigated..“The two chargesheets filed by the investigation agency both dated November 2, 2021, had no mention of provisions of Official Secrets Act despite the fact that as per reply received by investigation agency by Indian Navy, the documents in question were secret documents and the investigating agency was aware that offence/s under Official Secrets Act were made out against the accused,” the Court was observed..The Court found it “relevant to note” that investigations under the Official Secrets Act cases were conducted by the agency which registers the FIR, and the department that gives the sanction by way of authorising a person to file the complaint acts only on the basis of the said investigation..Therefore, the Court's order stated that it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to have filed the chargesheet within 60 days under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC (report of police officer on completion of investigation), mentioning that the investigation on their part was complete and that the reference had been made to the Ministry concerned for filing a complaint under the relevant sections.“This might have been substantial compliance of section 173(2) CrPC,” the Court pointed out, adding that although the allegations are grave, Section 167(2) of the CrPC did not permit it to consider the gravity of the offence..A reprieve was thus allowed for Satwinder Jeet Singh, Randeep Singh and TP Shastry on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with one surety of like amount. each.“The applicants, however, are directed not to contact any person related to this case. They shall not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever,” the accused were told..Public Prosector Raman Kumar represented the CBI. Advocates Bharat Chugh, Yashpreet Singh and Ekjot Bhasin represented Randeep Singh and advocate Sumit Kumar appeared for the TP Shastry. Meenesh Dubey and Abdhesh Chaudhary appeared for Satwinder Jeet Singh. A fourth accused a commander, represented by advocate MF Philip was also granted default bail today..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.