Delhi HC Asks Registrar General To Expeditiously Explore Possibility Of Creating Software To Preserve Right To Default Bail

The Delhi High Court has asked its Registrar General to expeditiously implement a 2018 verdict wherein he was requested to explore the possibility of creation of a database for district courts to ensure preservation of right of default bail of the accused.

Justice Anu Malhotra referred to the observations made in Arvind Kumar Saxena v. State wherein she had requested the Registrar General to create the database on various dates in relation to pending remand applications before the trial courts, the dates of arrest and by when the chargesheet is to be filed or has been filed.

The court in the 2018 verdict had observed that such a database or software would enable the trial courts to inform the accused appearing before them that they are entitled to the indefeasible right of default bail and may exercise the same if he or she is willing to furnish bail.

"It is, however, expected by this Court that the observations of this Court in Arvind Kumar Saxena V. State; a verdict dated 14.3.2018 in Bail Appln. No. 2238/2017 referred to herein above vide paragraph 18 are expeditiously explored to be implemented by the Registrar General of this Court," Justice Malhotra said in an order passed on Monday.

The direction came while the court denied bail to a Nepal national Sher Singh in the 2020 espionage case in which freelance journalist Rajeev Sharma is a prime accused.

Singh, as per his plea, had come to India to find a job to cater to his family's needs and was an office peon-cum-driver in MZ Mall Private Limited, which had Chinese nationals in the management. His lawyer told the court that his role was to clean the office, drive a vehicle and deliver or pick packages as per specific directions of the company management.

The court was told that while co-accused availed default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, Singh could not avail the same as he could not afford to hire any advocate for his defence. It was also submitted that while co-accused were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, the central agency did not arrest him.

Justice Malhotra said Singh admittedly "had not chosen" to seek the grant of default bail.

"It is rightly held vide order dated 20.5.2022 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-05, New Delhi declining the prayer made by the applicant seeking the grant of bail observing to the effect that there is no parity between the applicant and the co-accused Rajeev Sharma and Qing Shi granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973," said the bench.

On merits, the court said "in view of the gravity of the offence affecting the national security of the country, there is no ground for grant of bail and the bail application is declined." 

The Case

The FIR was registered by the Special Cell under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1983 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the prosecution, a secret input was received from an intelligence agency that Sharma had links with a foreign intelligence officer and had been receiving funds from his handler through illegal means and Western Union money transfer platform.

During investigation, Sharma was arrested and several articles including some sensitive and confidential documents related to the Indian Defence Department were allegedly recovered during a search at his home.

Sharma is accused of conveying secret and confidential information to Chinese Intelligence Officers and receiving remuneration through shell companies like MZ Mall Private Limited and MZ Pharmacy Private Limited.

Later, co accused Qing Shi, a Chinese national and Sher Singh, the applicant, were also arrested. According to the police, Singh was a co-director of one of the companies. Sharma allegedly was being funded through these shell companies on the directions of Chinese Intelligence Officers.

Accused Rajeev Sharma and Qing Shi were granted bail by the High Court in December 2020 and July 2021, respectively, under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

Title: SHER SINGH @ RAJ BOHARA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

Click Here To Read/Download Order