Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A single judge bench comprising Justice Anil S Kishor at the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench has recently granted bail to a former engineer of BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd who was booked for spying for Pakistan Intelligence Agency- ISI.

The single judge bench observed that prima facie there was no material to show that offence was committed by the applicant.

“Moreover, prima facie, there is no material to suggest that the alleged act was committed by the applicant with intention. Furthermore, to secure the presence of the applicant at the trial, certain stringent conditions can be imposed” the order read.

Accused Nishant Agarwal was working with the BrahMos Missile Centre in Nagpur in the technical department and was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad. He was then booked under the Official Secrets Act.

Senior Advocate SV Manohar appearing on behalf of Nishant argued that the court had earlier rejected his bail plea while observing that the prosecution was expected to take necessary steps to conclude the trial within 6 months.

However, the trial was going at a slow pace with no possibility of concluding in near future. He submitted that most of the witnesses were not turning up for evidence and that only six witnesses had been examined, so far. As per the prosecution, a further eleven witnesses were left to be examined. Further, every adjournment was for one month because the witnesses were from Uttar Pradesh.

He also pointed out to the court that Nishant was in jail for the last four years and six months and if he is convicted under Section 5 of the Act of 1923 and not under Section 3, the maximum punishment would be three years. Therefore, he submitted that Nishant is in jail for a substantive period of incarceration, and considering the maximum punishment even under Section 3, he is entitled to a grant of bail.

Additional Public Prosecutor VA Thakare opposed the application and submitted that the offence was very serious and the maximum punishment is fourteen years under Section 3 of the Act of 1923. He, therefore, submitted that the court may not grant bail to the applicant. It was also submitted that whether Section 3 of the Act of 1923 would attract in this case, was a matter of trial and at the present stage, it could not be considered.

He also pointed out that sufficient incriminating material was available on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and as the offence relates to the safety of the State, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.

The court, however, agreed with the contentions of Senior Advocate SV Manohar and granted bail to Aggarwal on a bail bond bond of Rs.25,000 with a solvent surety of like amount.

Case Title: Nishant Aggrawal vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr