The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to grant bail to a former Army serviceman accused of supplying sensitive information related to military activities to Pakistani intelligence operatives.
Rejecting the plea filed by Harpal Singh, alias Harbahal Singh, Justice Manisha Batra observed that the accusations levelled against him were grave in nature and carried serious implications for national security.
According to the prosecution, Singh allegedly maintained regular contact with officials linked to Pakistani intelligence agencies through various social media platforms. Investigators claim that, drawing upon his previous association with the Indian Army, he collected and shared confidential details concerning troop movements, military formations and war preparedness in return for financial benefits.
The court noted that the allegations went beyond mere communication, pointing to claims that the accused had transmitted highly sensitive information capable of affecting the country’s security interests.
Singh, who was serving with the Defence Service Corps at the Air Force Station in Bikaner when he was arrested on February 7, was booked by the Special Operations Cell in Amritsar under the Official Secrets Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The case originated after police received intelligence inputs alleging that the former serviceman was gathering classified information about Army deployments and passing it on to handlers across the border.
Seeking bail, Singh argued that he had been falsely implicated. His counsel highlighted that he had served the Army for nearly seventeen years with an unblemished record and contended that investigators had not apprehended him from any restricted military installation. Instead, it was argued that he had been taken into custody from a wedding ceremony.
The defence further maintained that the prosecution had failed to produce any concrete evidence demonstrating that confidential information had actually been transmitted to anyone.
The High Court, however, remained unconvinced. Referring to the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence collected during the investigation and the broader public interest involved, the Bench held that the case did not warrant the grant of regular bail at this stage.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
