Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s grant of bail, finding no infirmity in the order and directing that the trial court assess the evidence independently.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the CBI challenging the Delhi High Court’s grant of bail to Abhishek Verma, who was charged under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 409/109 read with 120‑B of the IPC for allegedly receiving classified defence information via pen drives. The Court held that the High Court’s order was not infirm and that bail could be granted despite the non‑bailable nature of the offences, emphasizing that the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the circumstantial evidence, and the fact that the accused had already spent 22 months in pre‑trial detention were relevant considerations. It clarified that the presumption of possession under Section 3(2) of the OSA is rebuttable and that the trial court must evaluate evidence on its own merit without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s or High Court’s observations. No misuse of liberty on bail was alleged, and the Court found no difficulty in securing the accused’s presence at trial. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the bail order upheld.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting bail in non‑bailable offences under the Official Secrets Act and IPC.
Whether the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence and the character of the evidence justify bail.
The interpretation and effect of the presumption of possession under Section 3(2) of the Official Secrets Act.
Whether the trial court should be influenced by the observations of the High Court and this judgment while conducting the trial.
The sufficiency of the pen‑drive evidence to link the respondent to the alleged leakage.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439, s. 482
Indian Passport Act
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120-B, s. 409
Official Secrets Act, 1923s. 3, s. 9

Subjects

bailnon‑bailable offenceOfficial Secrets Actnational securitypresumption of possessioncircumstantial evidencetrial court independence

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 1154

A C.8.1., NEW DELHI.
V.
ABHISHEK VERMA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 935-936 of 2009
MAY 6, 2009
B
(S.8. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) i

Official Secrets Act, 1923/Penal Code, 1860:
Sections 3, 9 Sections 409, 109 rlw 120-B - Charges ~

c framed -Application for Bail rejected by CMM as also by ADJ ·"
- High Court granted bail - Correctness of - Held: Correct -
There is no infirmity in the High Court's order - However, trial
court to examine the evidence on their own merit without being
influenced by the present observations or the order of the High
Court - Bail - Grant of
D
The respondent was charged with having access to
J
certain official records of the Defence Ministry having a
bearing on the safety and security of the nation, through
some compromised officers who were paid /gratified for
E providing information to him. According to CBI, a pen drive
recovered by it from the respondent was proof of the
charges against him. The CMM took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets
Act (OSA) and under Section 409/109 r/w Section 120-B
F IPC. Respondent's bail application was rejected by the
CMM and subsequently by the ADJ. The respondent
moved Bail Application before the High Court and it
granted him bail. Hence the appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1. Before granting bail in cases involving non- t
bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet
commenced, the first aspect which must be examined is
with regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence.
H 1154
C.8.1. , NEW DELHI. V ABHISHEK VERMA 1155

lnter-alia, one of the charges against the respondent is A
Section 3 of the OSA. A perusal of Section 3 shows that it
contemplates two kinds of offences, one which attracts a
greater punishment of 14 years and the other with a lesser
punishment of 3 years. It was contended that when it is
unclear which punishment to be applied under Section 3 B
of OSA, the Court must proceed on the assumption that it
is the more severe i.e. 14 years which is to be applied.
However, in this case, the ac~used had already undergone
pre-trial detention of twenty two months without ~ven a
prima facie determination of the seriousness of the c
offence.[Para 14] [1164-8-E]
~

State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 -
distinguished.
2. With regard to nature and character of the
0
evidence, the prosecution case is essentially based on
circumstantial evidence." It would neither be appropriate
nor desirable to discuss the entire evidence as the same
is the subject matter of the trial. However, for the limited
purpose of the disposal of the present appeal it is
appropriate to consider the character of the evidence. It E
is the case of the appellant that a copy of document in
PDF form found in the pen drive recovered from Vijender
Rana which is a letter dated 5th January, 2005 from an
official of Indian High Commission, London to the Ministry
of External Affairs, New Delhi. The right hand top corner F
of the copy of the documents contains the word: 'Kind
Attention A. Verma'. According to the respondent no such
document is available in the records of the MEA and 'A.
Verma' could well refer to Anupam Verma. The veracity of
such rival claims can only be decided during the trial. G
[Para 15] [1164-F-H; 1165-A]
3. It was the case of the appellant that the pen drives
recovered from the co-accused Vijendra Rana and the
documents seized from the premises of Kulbhushan · H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A Parashar contain sensitive information. However, there j

is no denial of the fact that there was neither any recovery
from the respondent nor at the instance of the respondent.
Further, no satisfactory answer has been provided by the
appellants to counter the submission of the respondent
B that the pen drives were not tamper proof when handed
over to the CBI and before handing it to the CBI, several
copies of their contents was made by the authorities.[Para
16] (1165-B-C]
4. Govt. of NCT, Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh succinctly
c explains the ambit of Section 3(2) of the OSA by stating
that once the accused is found in conscious possession
of the material then it would be presumed that such
possession was for a purpose prejudicial to the interests
of the State. Clearly, the said presumption under Section
D 3(2) of the OSA is a rebuttable presumption and the
respondent will have an opportunity to rebut the same
during the trial. Further, the said case is clearly distin-
guishable as in the above-mentioned case the stage was
that of post-conviction and has little bearing on the
E present one since in the present case, the evidence is yet
to be adduced in the trial.[Para 18] [1166-F-H]
Govt. of NCT, Delhi v. Jaspa/ Singh 2003 (10) SCC 586
- distinguished.

F 5. There is no denial of the fact that the respondent
is an approver in another case involving one Ashok
Agarwal, a former Deputy Director of Enforcement. The
said order of making approver is under challenge before
this Court. The respondent has been provided security
by the Delhi Police due to the death threats faced by him
G
in that case. Restrictions have already been imposed on 4
the respondent on his traveling abroad in earlier matters
(viz. under the FERA and the Passport Act). So, the
prosecution would have no difficulty in securing the
presence of the respondent during the trial. Despite the
H
C.B.I., NEW DELHI V. ABHISHEK VERMA 1157

fact that he is on bail for last about ten months there is no A
allegation about any misuse or abuse of the liberty or
violation of any of the conditions. [Para 19] [1167=A-C]
6. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order
passed by the High Court. However, it is clarified that
whatever views and conclusion expressed in this order B
are purely prima facie and for the limited purpose of finding
out whether the impugned order of the High Court is
sustainable or not. The trial court shall not in any manner
be influenced by these observations or that of the High
Court made in the course of the order granting bail as all c
such observations are tentative in nature. The trial court
would necessarily examine the evidence after it is led on
their own merit and without being in any manner
influenced by this order and also the order passed by the
High Court granting bail. If at any point of time there is D
any adverse allegation against the respondent regarding
any misuse or abuse of the liberty granted to him and as
and when an application is filed with such allegation
seeking for cancellation of bail, the trial court shall deal
with such contention and prayer in accordance with law
and pass such order as deem fit and proper. [Para 20] E
[1167-D-G]
Case Law Reference
(1984) 3 sec 555 distinguished Para 13
2003 (10) SCC 586 distinguished Para 17 F

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 935-936 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Delhi in Bail Application G
No. 2546 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. No. 4231 of 2006
Gopal Subramonium, ASG, B.B. Singh (for B.K. Krishna
Prasad), for the Appellant.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sandeep Kapur, Parmod Dubey, H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A Rajneesh Chopra, Mehul M. Gupta, Dhruv Kapur, Ruby S. Ahuja
(for Mrs. Manik Karanjawala), with him for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
B 1. Heard counsel for the parties on the delay application.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay stands
condoned.
2. Leave granted
c 3. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated
30.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi by which the
learned Single Judge granted bail to the respondent herein.
4. Facts in brief as per prosecution are as follows:

0 In May, 2005 a court of inquiry conducted by the Air Force
Headquarters had established that one Wing Commander S.L.
Surve had obtained a pen drive containing information pertaining
to the Directorate of Naval Operation (ONO) from Kulbhushan
Parashar, a former officer of the Indian Navy. A Board of Enquiry
was held by the Naval Headquarters and three Naval Officers
E namely Kashyap Kumar, Vijender Rana and Vinod Kumar Jha
were indicted for causing classified naval information to be
leaked to unauthorized persons thus jeopardizing the security
of the State. In the said Court of Enquiry it came to light that
Kulbhushan Parashar was associated with a company named
F Atlas.
On the basis of the information received from the Ministry
of Defence under two letters dated 18.02.2006 and 01.03.2006,
the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'the CBI') registered
an FIR on 20.3.2006 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
G Code (in short 'the IPC') read with Section 3(1)(c) and Section
5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (in short 'the OSA') against
Kulbhushan Parashar, Ex. Cdr. Ravi Shankaran, S.K. Kohli,
Mukesh Bajaj, Ms. Rajrani Jaiswal, Sambhajee L. Surve,
Virender Rana, Kashyap Kumar and Vijender Kumar Jha. The
H Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi passed an order dated
C.B.I., NEW DELHI. V ABHISHEK VERMA 1159
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

10th July, 2006 taking cognizance of the above-mentioned A
' . offences.
After completion of investigation, charge sheets were filed
against Kulbhushan Parashar, Ex. Cdr. Vijender Rana, Ex. Cdr.,
V.K. Jha, Ex. Wg. Cdr., S.L. Surve and Ravi Shankaran
(Proclaimed Offender). The investigation revealed that all these 8
accused can be grouped in 3 categories as follows:
GROUP I It consists of the accused who were serving in
Indian Navy and Indian Air Force. Accused Vijender Rana,
V.K. Jha and S.L. Surve fall in this group. c
GROUP II It consists of the accused who have been retired
from Indian Navy. Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi
Shankaran (Proclaimed Offender) fall in this group.
GROUP Ill It consists of the accused who were private D
persons and have never served Indian Navy or Air Force.
The respondent herein (Abhishek Verma) falls in this group.
5. The allegation in the charge sheet was that Kulbhushan
Parashar who was earlier working with Ravi Shankaran at
Mumbai, started working with the respondent after he moved to E
Delhi. Kulbhushan Parashar was the Vice President of Atlas
Defence System (ADS) and was interacting with the Ministry of
Defence for various products including 2 MB PCM MUC
multiplexing equipment for simultaneous transmission of
subject, telegraph messages and data over point to point F
communication, Subscriber End Secrecy Device (SESD) and
Terrestrial Trunk Radio (TETRA) and Aerostat. It has been stated
that the respondent was closely associated with Atlas Group of
Companies and also those which existed in India in the name
arid style of Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. One World G
Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. which had close links with foreign
• registered sister concerns M/s. Atlas Defence Systerms, Atlas
Telecom Pvt. Ltd. U.K. The respondent was on the board of two
other companies, viz., Atlas Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (AllPL)
and One World Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (OWIPL). Although the H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A bids were made by M/s. Atlas Telecom Network (ATN) and ADS,
the respondent was also stated to be associated with these
•
companies and was monitoring the bids. The address of both
these companies was also used by ADS and ATN. According
to the CBI, ADS was a division of the Atlas Group which provided
8 turnkey high speed aeronautical satellite communications
solutions from highly secure military application.
6. It has been further stated in the charge sheet that there
was a close association between the respondent herein and
Kashyap Kumar and Ravi Shankaran. Ravi Shankaran has
c received such critical information on national security from the ..
compromised defence officers namely Vijender Rana, through ""....
the Jet Flash Pen Drive and e-mails and that he was also in
touch with foreign companies. It has been further stated that a
file bearing No. IDS/Ops/C412/32037, which is a file classified
D as secret and deals with matters related to Andaman and
Nicobar Command of Indian Army which is of high strategic
importance from the point of view of national security and the
fact that this document has been sent to the respondent herein
and has been recovered from this Jet Flash Pen Drive clearly
E proves that the respondent was having access to such official
records of Defence Ministry having a bearing on the safety and
security of the nation, through some compromised officers who
were paid/gratified for providing information illegally to him
directly and also to Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran.
F A jet flash pen drive recovered from Vijender Rana, an officer
posted in the Naval War Room, indicated the commission paid
to the respondent by Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran
in Mumbai and Delhi as between 0.5% to 1.5% for procurement
of equipments. Documents seized from the residential premises
of Kulbhushan Parashar contained official correspondence
G
between the Atlas Group of Companies with the armed forces
~
and the Ministry of Defence relating to the supply of equipment
for the Indian Army for which ATN was one of the bidders.
Kulbhushan Parashar is stated to have purchased pen drives
and distributed it to the other officers including Vijender Rana
H
C.8.1., NEW DELHI. V ABHISHEK VERMA 1161
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

and S.L. Survey. Therefore, it was stated that Kulbhushan A
Parashar and Ravi Shankaran had an active role in collecting
and passing on of 6867 pages of classified defence information
from the computers of the Naval War Room of Indian Air Force
which is stated to be evident from the pen drives recovered
from Vijender Rana and S.L. Surve. B

7. The respondent was summoned by the CBI to join
investigation. As the respondent couldn't reply satisfactorily, he
st nd
was arrested on 21 July, 2006. On 22 July, 2006 the CMM,
Delhi remanded him to police custody. Aggrieved by the said
order of the CMM, Delhi, the respondent filed a petition bearing C
Crl. M.C. No. 4231 of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court of Delhi challenging the aforesaid order of the
CMM, Delhi and prayed for his release forthwith. On a
subsequent application, the High Court on 17th August, 2006
permitted the respondent to amend the prayer clause seeking D
quashing of the order dated 22°d July, 2006 and "all orders/
proceedings consequent thereto in view of the subsequent
developments".
1
8. On 18 h October, 2006 a complaint under Section 13 of
the OSA was filed and on the next date i.e. 19th October 2006 a E
supplementary charge sheet were filed against the respondent.
The CMM took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3
and 9 of the OSA and under Section 409/109 read with Section
120-B IPC. On 13th April, 2007, an application of bail by
respondent was rejected by the CMM. The respondent's F
subse~uent application for bail was dismissed by the ADJ, Delhi
1
on 29 May, 2007. The respondent then preferred a bail
application bearing Bail Application No. 2546 of 2007 under
Sec~ion 439 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi praying for
the grant of bail. G
9. The High Court in its common judgment and order dated
30 h May ~008 disposed both the matters pending before it (i.e.
1

Cr.M.C. N',0. 4231 of 2006 and Bail Application No. 2546 of
'
2007) by gri'rnting bail to the respondent on furnishing a personal H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh with two sureties in the like amount
A
to the satisfaction of the trial court. Pursuant to the order of the ,
High Court, the trial court enlarged the respondent on bail on
03.06.2008. The respondent, therefore, is presently on bail and
there is no allegation that at any point of time subsequent thereto
B he has misused or mis-utilised the liberty granted to him.
10. Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal. It was contended
that the instant case is related to leakage of sensitive classified
information relating to defence matter of India by use of
c advanced communication technologies like Pen Drives,
Scanners, Fax Machines and E-mails etc. and that over six
thousand pages of sensitive information were taken out from
the Directorate of Naval Operation (ONO) and Air Force
Headquarters, for a purpose prejudicial to safety and interest
D of India. It is evident that the crime is of grave nature. The national
security was jeopardized and no offence is graver than the
offence where national interest was put on stake. In view of the
same, it was urged that the High Court erred in granting bail to
the respondent.
E
11. On the other hand, it was forcefully argued on the behalf
of the respondent that the High Court rightly granted the bail to
""----
the respondent as there was no material on record to show that
the respondent was a director/principal officer of Atlas Interactive
India Ltd or that he was heading the Atlas Group of Companies
A
F in India of which ADS formed a part. It was also contended that
the only evidence available against the respondent is that he is
an authorised signatory of the bank accounts of the ATN and
there was no evidence to show that the pen drives which were
recovered from Vijendra Rana were in the possession of the
G respondent at any time. Further, there was no evidence of
transmission of the material by the co-accused. /to the
respondent. The pen drives were in an unsealed condition and ~

multiple copies were made by the authorities nine r;ri)lnths prior
to the pen drives being taken in possession by the ~Bl. Neither
I
H '·
C.B.I, NEW DELHI. V ABHISHEK VERMA 1163
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

the respondent has made any disclosure statement leading to A
any recovery nor have any incriminatory documents been seized
from the respondent. Further, no link has been established
between the pen drives and any computer belonging to the
respondent either at his residence or in his office. The aforesaid
submissions were carefully considered by us. B
12. Before further dwelling into the matter we would like to
clarify here that nothing discussed herein or observation made
herein while disposing the instant appeal be treated as any
comment on the merit and also the trial and the same must not
influence the opinion of the trial court in any manner. C
13. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the
Supreme Court in State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555
@ 559, wherein this Court has observed as follows:
"9. The offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official D
Secrets Act, 1923 with which the respondent is charged
relates to military affairs and it is punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years. This
Court in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh1 has indicated that
the Court should exercise a greater degree of care in E
enlarging on bail an accused who is charged with the
offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets
Act when it relates to military affairs. I have also gone
through the decisions of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v.
State (Delhi Administration)Z and Gudikanti Narasimhulu F
v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh~ which
deal with the principles governing the grant of bail. It may
be mentioned here that in the last of the above cases, the
accused had been acquitted by the trial court but convicted
by the High Court on appeal. On a consideration of the G
above three decisions, I am of the view that the Court
before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable
offences particularly where the trial has not yet
commenced should take into consideration various
matters such as the nature and seriousness of the
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable
possibility of the presence of the accused not being
secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
B public or the State and similar other considerations."

(emphasis added)
14. So, before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable
offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced,
c the first aspect which must be examined is with regard to the
nature and seriousness of the offence. lnter-alia, one of the
charges against the respondent is Section 3 of the OSA. A
perusal of Section 3 shows that it contemplates two kinds of
offences, one which attracts a greater punishment of 14 years
and the other with a lesser punishment of 3 years. The appellant
D has relied on several decisions of this Court to establish that
when it is unclear which punishment to be applied under Section
3 of OSA, the Court must proceed on the assumption that it is
the more severe i.e. 14 years which is to be applied. However,
the cases cited by the appellant are distinguishable. In none of
E the cases cited by the appellant, the accused had already
undergone pre-trial detention of twenty two months without even
a prima facie determination of the seriousness of the offence.
15. Further, with regard to nature and character of the
F evidence, the prosecution case is essentially based on -
circumstantial evidence. It would neither be appropriate nor
desirable to discuss the entire evidence as the same is the l·
subject matter of the trial. However, for the limited purpose of
the disposal of the present appeal we deem it appropriate to
G consider the character of the evidence. It is the case of the
appellant that a copy of document in PDF form found in the pen
drive recovered from Vijender Rana which is a letter dated 5th
January, 2005 from an official of Indian High Commission,
London to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. The right
H hand top corner of the copy of the documents contains the word:
C.B.I., NEW DELHI. V ABHISHEK VERMA 1165
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J]

'Kind Attention A. Verma'. According to the respondent no such A
document is available in the records of the MEA and 'A. Verma'
could well refer to an Anupam Verma. The veracity of such rival
claims can only be decided during the trial.
16. It was argued by the appellant that the pen drives B
recovered from the co-accused Vijendra Rana and the
documents seized from the premises of Kulbhushan Parashar
contain sensitive information. However, there is no denial of the
fact that there was neither any recovery from the respondent
nor at the instance of the respondent. Further, no satisfactory
answer has been provided by the appellants to counter the C
submission of the respondent that the pen drives were not ternper
proof when handed over to the CBI and before handing it to the
CBI, several copies of their contents was made by the
authorities.
D
17. The appellant has drawn our attention to a decision of
this Court in Govt. of NCT, Delhi v. Jaspal Singh 2003 (10) SCC
586 @ 593, wherein this Court observed:
"8. So far as the scope of Section 3(1) (c) of the Act is
concerned, it was urged for the respondent that unless the E
articles enumerated are shown to be "secret" document
or material and that besides their collection they were
published or communicated to any other person, the
charge under the said provision could not be said to have
I
been made out. Apparently, the inspiration for such a F
submission was the judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Bombay High Court reported in State of Maharashtra
v. Dr B.K. Subbarao 1 . We are unable to agree with this
extreme submission on behalf of the respondent. This
Court in Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat2 had held: G
(a) that the word "secret" in clause (c) of sub-section (1)
of Section 3 qualified official code or password and not
any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document
or information, and (b) when the accused was found in
conscious possession of the material (map in that case) H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 7 S.C.R.

A and no plausible explanation has been given for its
possession, it has to be presumed as required by Section
3(2) of the Act that the same was obtained or collected by
the appellant for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or
interests of the State. Further, each one of the several
B acts enumerated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the Act, by themselves will constitute, individually,
an offending act to attract the said provision and it is not
necessary that only one or more of them and particularly,
publishing or communication of the same need be
c conjointly proved for convicting one charged with the
offence of obtaining or collecting records or secret official
code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article or
note or other document or information. Any such
interpretation would not only amount to doing violence
to the language, scheme underlying and the very object
D
of the said provision besides rendering otiose or a dead
letter the specific provision engrafted in sub-section (2)
of Section 3 of the Act. In view of this, the decision of the
Single Judge of the High Court in B.K. Subbarao 1 cannot
be said to lay down the correct position of law on the
E scope of Section 3(1) (c) of the Act."
(emphasis added)
18. The above-mentioned case succinctly explains the
ambit of Section 3(2) of the OSA by stating that once the accused
F is found in conscious possession of the material then it would
be presumed that such possession was for a purpose
prejudicial to the interests of the State. Clearly, the said
presumption under Section 3(2) of the OSA is a rebuttable
presumption and the respondent will have an opportunity to rebut
G the same during the trial. Further, the case relied hereinabove
by the appellant is clearly distinguishable as in the above-
mentioned case the stage was that of post-conviction and has
little bearing on the present one since in the present case, the
evidence is yet to be adduced in the trial.
H
C.BJ, NEW DELHI V ABHISHEK VERMA 1167
[DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

19. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the respondent A
is an approver in another case involving one Ashok Agarwal, a
former Deputy Director of Enforcement. The said order of
making approver is under challenge before this Court. The .
respondent has been provided security by the Delhi Police due
to the death threats faced by him in that case. Restrictions have B
already been imposed on the respondent on his traveling abroad
in earlier matters (viz. under the FERA and the Passport Act).
So, we find that the prosecution would have no difficulty in
securing the presence of the respondent during the trial. Despite
the fact that he is on bail for last about ten months there is no c
allegation about any misuse or abuse of the liberty or violation
of any of the conditions.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity
in the judgment and order passed by the High Court. We make
it clear that whatever views and conclusion we have expressed D
in this order of ours are purely prima facie and for the limited
purpose of finding out whether the impugned order of the High
Court is sustainable or not. The trial court shall not in any manner
be influenced by these observations of ours or that of the High
Court made in the course of the order granting bail as all such E
..; observations are tentative in nature. The trial court would
llL necessarily examine the evidence after it is led on their own
merit and without being in any manner influenced by this order
and also the order passed by the High Court granting bail. We,
however, make it clear that if at any point of time there is any F
adverse allegation against the respondent regarding any misuse
or abuse of the liberty granted to him and as and when an
application is filed with such allegation seeking for cancellation
of bail, the trial court shall deal with such contention and prayer
in accordance with law and pass such order as deem fit and G
proper.
21. Accordingly, the present appeals are hereby dismissed
with the aforesaid observations.

G.N. Appeals dismissed.