The Delhi High Court on 25 September 2026 dismissed the regular bail application of Habib Ur Rahman, an accused in an Official Secrets Act case involving the alleged possession and transmission of classified military documents to an official at the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi. A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the material on record prima facie connected Rahman with the chain of transmission, and that neither his prolonged custody nor his deteriorating medical condition justified his release at this stage.

The Charges and the Alleged Chain of Transmission

Habib Ur Rahman was arrested on 14 July 2021 following an FIR registered at the Crime Branch police station under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including criminal breach of trust, destruction of evidence, theft, house trespass, criminal conspiracy, and common intention. According to the prosecution, he was apprehended with copies of documents relating to military training, the operationalisation of the Armed Forces Special Operations Division (AFSOD), an intelligence summary, and other military material marked confidential or restricted.

Army authorities subsequently verified the documents as genuine, classified, and sensitive. The prosecution alleged that Rahman was not merely a passive recipient of the documents but acted as an intermediary — connecting co-accused Naik Clerk Paramjeet Kumar with Rana Muhammad Qasim Zia, stated to be an official of the Pakistan High Commission. The chargesheet further cited financial transactions, mobile phone and call detail records, and the statement of Rahman's employee, Mohd. Arif, who allegedly delivered documents at the Pakistan High Commission on Rahman's instructions.

What the Court Weighed

The court acknowledged several factors favouring Rahman. He had remained on interim bail from April 2024 until he voluntarily surrendered on 6 February 2026, during which no allegation of absconding, witness-tampering, or misuse of liberty was raised. As of 18 September 2026, his actual custody stood at three years, four months, and 13 days. Only four witnesses had been examined so far, making an early conclusion of the trial unlikely.

Justice Narula cited Supreme Court judgments recognising that the seriousness of a charge cannot justify indefinite detention when a trial shows no prospect of concluding within a reasonable time. “The gravity of the offence is an important consideration, but it does not relieve the Court of the duty to assess the case on its own facts,” the order stated. However, the court ultimately held that these factors did not outweigh the prima facie weight of the prosecution material. “The custody undergone is substantial; at this stage, however, it does not outweigh the prima facie assessment of the record noticed above,” it added.

Medical Condition: Serious but Not Grounds for Release

Rahman's counsel drew attention to his client's grave medical state. The latest medical report before the court described him as wheelchair-dependent, requiring assistance with daily activities, and suffering from post-traumatic paraplegia, left upper limb paresis, neurogenic bladder, and other ailments. He is currently receiving treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, Dr BSA Hospital, G.B. Pant Hospital, and related specialist departments.

The court, however, found that the medical report did not assert that the prescribed treatment could not be provided in custody or that continued incarceration was medically incompatible with his condition. “The medical record, therefore, does not by itself justify release on regular bail at this stage,” the order said. Separately, Justice Narula directed the jail superintendent to ensure all prescribed treatment — including specialist consultations and physiotherapy — was arranged without avoidable delay, with any treatment unavailable in jail to be provided at an appropriate government hospital.

Directions to the Trial Court

While denying bail, the Delhi High Court directed the trial court to give the matter due priority and to record prosecution evidence expeditiously. It also directed that unnecessary adjournments should not be granted to either side, signalling judicial impatience with the pace of proceedings. The court was careful to note that its observations were confined strictly to the bail application and would not be read as any expression on the merits of the prosecution's case.

The case is being closely watched given its national security dimensions, and the pace of the trial — with only four witnesses examined in over five years — is likely to remain a point of scrutiny going forward.