Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail To Ex-Serviceman Accused Of Spying For Pakistan

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the bail application of an ex-serviceman accused of passing confidential Army-related information to Pakistani intelligence agencies, holding that the gravity of the allegations and their bearing on national security outweighed the grounds urged for release. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manisha Batra, dismissing the petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that this was not a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail at this stage.

The petitioner, Harpal Singh @ Harbahal Singh, an ex-serviceman presently posted with the Defence Service Corps at Air Force Station, Bikaner, was booked in FIR No.07 dated 7 February 2026, registered under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at the Police Station, State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar. 

According to the prosecution, a secret informer disclosed to the investigating officer that the petitioner was in contact with officials of Pakistani intelligence agencies through various social media applications, and that, using his old contacts in the Indian Army, he collected highly confidential information regarding Army movements and other matters concerning national security and transmitted it to Pakistan in exchange for monetary consideration received through hawala and other means. 

It was further alleged that on the day of the occurrence, he had been assigned the task of collecting information on enhanced Army movements in the Amritsar Cantonment area. He was arrested on 7 February 2026, and the investigation has since concluded with the challan presented before the trial court.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that he had been falsely implicated, having served in the Indian Army for nearly seventeen years with an unblemished record, and that he was picked up not from any prohibited or sensitive military area but from a marriage function. It was argued that the allegations in the FIR were vague and general, disclosing no specific details of the alleged confidential information, the mode of its transmission, or any concrete instance of communication with a foreign agency, and that the ₹3,000 he was alleged to have received was in fact from an acquaintance, one Gurcharan Singh, and not from any handler. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had clean antecedents, that his custodial interrogation was no longer required, and that his continued detention would serve no useful purpose, given that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations were serious and specific, and that the investigation had revealed the petitioner was in constant contact with Pakistan-based intelligence over the phone. It was urged that, given the gravity of the allegations and their bearing on national security, the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail.

Having heard the rival submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner was alleged to have established contact with Pakistani intelligence officials through social media platforms and, leveraging his past association with the Indian Army, collected and transmitted confidential information relating to Army movements, war preparations and military formations, allegedly in exchange for monetary consideration. 

The Court observed that “having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the material collected during investigation and the larger public interest involved, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.” 

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court accordingly dismissed it.

The Court clarified that nothing observed in the order was to be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, and that the trial court would proceed independently, uninfluenced by any observations made therein.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kuljit Singh Bal, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State: Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Case Title: Harpal Singh @ Harbahal Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-26755-2026 (O&M)