The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a sepoy accused of leaking sensitive secret information to Pakistan in exchange for illegal gratification.
A single judge Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill stated, “…apart from one WhatsApp text message, which also cannot be said to be incriminating, nothing else could be pointed out which could be said to connect the petitioner with the allegations made in the FIR.”
In 2021, Haryana Police received secret information that Rohit Kumar, serving as a sepoy in the Indian Army, had been leaking sensitive information to Pakistan in exchange for illegal gratification. A raid was conducted at his residence in Village Korwa Khurd, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, leading to his apprehension.
The prosecution further alleged that two mobile phones were recovered from the petitioner and that during the investigation, it was revealed that illegal gratification had been passed on to the petitioner’s father and credited to his bank account.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated and that there was no credible evidence showing he had passed any information to Pakistan or received any gratification.
Opposing the petition, the State counsel submitted that during the investigation, call details were scrutinized, with copies annexed to the State’s reply filed on the last hearing date. It was noted that the petitioner had been regularly in contact with one Shruti Parry, who was reportedly operating from Pakistan and had a Facebook account by the same name.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that while the State had informed that nothing incriminating was found in the call details, the data recovered from the mobile phones, totaling 48 GB, was yet to be examined. The Court had directed the State to take necessary steps in this regard.
Following the Court’s directions, the State filed a report indicating that no incriminating evidence was found.
The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for over 2½ years and that only one prosecution witness out of fifteen had been examined. Given these circumstances, and particularly the fact that the State could not produce any incriminating evidence against the petitioner, the Court concluded that further detention would not be justified. Consequently, the Court granted regular bail.
