The Supreme Court has held that a defect in informing an accused of the grounds of arrest does not justify bail unless prejudice is shown, and cancelled bail in an Official Secrets Act case. The allegations are untested.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court granting regular bail to a man accused of sharing sensitive military information with foreign handlers said to belong to a Pakistani intelligence agency, holding that the grounds of arrest were substantially communicated and that no demonstrable prejudice had been shown [State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram].
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the State’s appeal, with the judgment authored by Justice Varale. The respondent is accused of offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations are untested, the Court said it expressed no opinion on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
How the case reached here
According to the prosecution, the respondent, a Jaisalmer resident, was in contact with foreign handlers and transmitted military photographs, videos and troop movement details from Pokhran and Jaisalmer for financial benefit. He was served notices under Section 8(1) of the Official Secrets Act before the FIR, and was arrested in Jaipur on January 30, 2026 under Sections 3 and 9 of the Act and Sections 152 and 238(b) BNS. The arrest memo was read to him before two witnesses and bears his signature, and his brother was informed.
The Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected regular bail on March 10, 2026, treating the signed memo as compliance in substance with Section 47 BNSS. The Rajasthan High Court granted bail on May 18, 2026, because written grounds of arrest had not been furnished, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
What the Court said
The Bench found “substantial and effective compliance” with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS, noting that the basis of arrest was told to him, recorded in the case diary and in the signed memo, and that he was represented at remand without raising any objection on this ground. It said the plea of non-communication was a:
“hyper-technical objection regarding the form or mode of communicating grounds of arrest”
Relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that an alleged procedural defect must be tested for demonstrable prejudice, that written communication is not an indispensable formality in every case, and that such a defect is not a self-executing key to regular bail. It also said the High Court had not given due weight to the gravity of the offences and the investigation material.
The directions
The Court set aside the High Court order, cancelled the bail and directed the respondent to surrender before the trial court or the investigating agency within two weeks, failing which the State shall take him into custody.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram
Bench: Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra and Advocate S. Udaya Kumar Sagar for the State; Advocates Anupam Singh, Saurabh Soni and others for the respondent