Irshad Ahmad v. State of Punjab
(2019) 4 RCR (Cri) 361
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
CRM-M 33567/2018
Before Justice H.P. Verma
Decided on September 13, 2019

Relevancy of the Case: Bail application in a case involving capturing photos of sensitive areas of the Indian Army and sharing them with ISIS

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 63, 65, 68)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 394)
• The Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Section 3)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Based on secret information, the police registered an FIR alleging that the petitioner has links with Pakistan’s secret agency, i.e., ISI.
• He had visited Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh. He clicked photographs of sensitive areas of the Indian Army and air base present there. Thereafter, he provided these pictures to ISI.
• During the investigation, the petitioner revealed his association with a private computer worker who had connections with ISIS and frequently visited Pakistan.
• This computer worker asked the petitioner to send photos of Army Cantt. He would further send them to ISI and get money from them.
• During the search, the police found one mobile phone with two SIM cards, one 4 GB memory card, photos of sensitive army areas in the mobile phone’s gallery, and a map.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the police had falsely implicated him in this case. Moreover, no court is competent enough to try this case without the government’s permission. A sanction is required under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Therefore, the current trial is illegal.
• The public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner’s mobile phone contained incriminating material. In May 2017, this court denied bail to the private computer worker, the other co-accused in this case.

Opinion of the Bench

• The petitioner’s claim regarding sanction under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is not sustainable. This is due to the seriousness of the allegations and the national security implications associated with the case.
• Only witnesses from the mobile company remain to be examined in the trial. Hence, there is no reason to grant regular bail.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the petition.

Aditi Sharma, an undergraduate student at NMIMS School of Law, Indore, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2023.