“An allegation bearing upon national security calls for close scrutiny; it does not place the matter beyond the Court’s bail jurisdiction,” the Delhi High Court said, and then refused bail to a man held for more than three years in an Official Secrets Act case. It asked the trial court to hurry and the jail to see that he is treated. The view is prima facie, and the allegations remain untested at trial.
New Delhi: Regular bail has been refused to Habib Ur Rahman, arrested in July 2021, by the Delhi High Court in an Official Secrets Act case. The prosecution alleges that he acted as an intermediary in passing classified military documents to an official of the Pakistan High Commission. The trial court has been asked to give the matter due priority, and the Jail Superintendent has been directed to ensure timely treatment [Habib Ur Rahman v. State Through SHO PS Special Cell Delhi].
Justice Sanjeev Narula decided the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by order dated September 25, 2026. The case arises from FIR No. 132/2021 of Police Station Crime Branch, registered under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Sections 409, 201, 380, 381, 457, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court expressed no view on the merits, the allegations are untested, and the accused is presumed innocent.
“Close scrutiny”, not a closed door
“An allegation bearing upon national security calls for close scrutiny; it does not place the matter beyond the Court’s bail jurisdiction.”
Neither the invocation of the Official Secrets Act nor the possibility of up to fourteen years’ imprisonment under Section 3 is conclusive, Justice Narula held. He turned to State v. Captain Jagjit Singh and State v. Jaspal Singh Gill and noted that neither decision lays down an absolute bar to bail. The prosecution case, he found, does not rest on a disclosure statement alone, and a closer examination “would risk undertaking the evidentiary assessment that a bail court must avoid.”
The allegations as the prosecution frames them
Mr Rahman was arrested on July 14, 2021. The investigation is over, the chargesheet is on file, charges have been framed and the trial has begun. The prosecution says that documents on military training, the operationalisation of AFSOD, an Intelligence Summary and other material marked confidential or restricted were recovered from him, and that the Army later verified them as genuine and classified. It alleges that he was the go-between for co-accused Naik Clerk Paramjeet Kumar and Rana Muhammad Qasim Zia, described as an official of the Pakistan High Commission.
Interim bail kept him out from April 2024 until he surrendered on February 6, 2026. On January 23, 2026, after considering the report of a nine-member Medical Board constituted by AIIMS, the Court had declined to extend interim bail further and directed him to surrender, leaving him free to seek regular bail if circumstances changed.
What each side put forward
For the applicant, counsel argued that the seriousness of a charge cannot displace ordinary bail principles. They pointed to over three years and four months in custody, evidence that is largely documentary, only four witnesses examined so far, and the fact that he is wheelchair-dependent.
APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, for the State, relied on the recovery and Army authentication of the documents, financial transactions, a mobile connection procured in the name of the applicant’s employee, call detail records, and the statement of that employee, Mohd. Arif, who is stated to have delivered documents at the Pakistan High Commission on the applicant’s instructions.
Custody, delay and health, weighed
Several points counted for the applicant. The Court recorded 3 years, 4 months and 13 days of actual custody as on September 18, 2026, satisfactory jail conduct, and no allegation that interim bail was misused. On delay, it distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: charges have been framed, prosecution evidence has begun, and the complete trial court order sheets were not before it. On health, the latest report records that he is wheelchair-dependent, but does not say that treatment cannot be given in custody or that incarceration is medically incompatible.
The dismissal, and the directions that came with it
“The Jail Superintendent shall ensure that every investigation, specialist consultation, course of physiotherapy, and treatment advised for the Applicant are provided without avoidable delay. Any investigation or treatment unavailable within the jail shall be arranged at an appropriate government hospital.”
The application stands dismissed. Given the custody already undergone, the trial court shall accord due priority and endeavour to record prosecution evidence expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments to either side. The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the bail application and express no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
ALSO READ: Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra
Liberty on one side, national security on the other
The order sets national-security allegations against Article 21 and finds that a statutory label does not close the door to bail. Still, the nature of the documents, their alleged source and destination, and the corroborating material can tip the prima facie assessment against release. Here the refusal comes with safeguards attached: a time-conscious trial and guaranteed medical care in custody.
Case Title: Habib Ur Rahman v. State Through SHO PS Special Cell Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 3081/2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 25, 2026
Appearances: V. Madhukar, Rakesh Sharma, Knishka Bhatt, Neeraj Kumar, Sakshi B. and Vikrant Chauhan for the Applicant; Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP, with Narendra Kumar for the State