IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.414 of 2011. Date of decision: 28.06.2011. Amrik Singh Gulati … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate with Mr.Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail. He has been charged for offences under Sections, 3, 5, 9 of the Official Secret Act, 1923 and Section 120-B of the IPC registered vide FIR No.2 of 2011, dated 27.1.2011 with the Police Station, CID at Bharari, Shimla. 2. Prior to the institution of the present petition, the petitioner has approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, who rejected the application vide his 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 order dated 25.3.2011, holding that investigation is in progress, the offences are of a serious nature involving the security of this Country and the petitioner is one of the persons who is a conspirator in the execution of the nefarious design of espionage. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Abhishek Verma, (2009)6 SCC 300. His involvement has not been established on the record and the material collected does not connect him with the offences in any manner. If he has been responsible for a few money transfers that does not bring him within the ambit of the Official Secret Act, 1923, as there is no direct link or evidence that he is actually responsible for passing of defence secret or sensitive information relating to the Union of India. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also gone through the record. At this stage, it will be premature to comment on the involvement of the petitioner as the case is at the pre-trial stage. Whether any offence is made out against the petitioner or not would be a matter to be argued at the stage of framing of charge at which point of time, the learned Court will have to undertake an exercise of prima facie sifting through the material on the record. Needless to say if there is no material against the petitioner, he will not be charged with the 3 offences and if his involvement in the espionage network is not established, he cannot be charged for offences under the Official Secret Act. 5. So far as the decision in Abhishek Verma’s case is concerned, it is confined to the facts of that very case. In criminal law there are no two cases which are alike. Considering the seriousness of the charges/offences with which the petitioner has been charged, this petition is rejected, at this stage. It will be open to the petitioner to apply to the Court again in accordance with law. June 28, 2011. (Dev Darahsn Sud) (aks) Judge.