The Delhi High Court has refused to grant regular bail to a wheelchair-bound man accused of spying for an official of the Pakistan High Commission and allegedly sharing sensitive military information.

In the said matter, the Court dismissed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the documents allegedly procured and transmitted by the accused.

“The gravity of the present case lies not in the statutory label alone, but in the nature of the documents allegedly procured, their asserted source, and their intended destination,” the Court observed.

Rahman was arrested in 2021 after an FIR was registered against him under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. He was allegedly found in possession of sensitive documents relating to military training and other material marked “confidential”. The prosecution accused him of acting as an intermediary to pass secret military information to an official at the Pakistan High Commission.

Rahman, who is wheelchair-bound and suffers from multiple ailments, had earlier been granted medical bail. In January 2026, however, the Court declined to extend his interim medical bail, observing that he could apply for regular bail instead.

While seeking bail, Rahman's counsel argued that the seriousness of the allegations alone could not justify continued incarceration. It was also submitted that the confidential documents were already in the Court's custody, leaving little scope for tampering with evidence.

The High Court acknowledged that Rahman had spent more than three years in custody. It also observed that the seriousness of criminal charges could not justify indefinite detention, particularly when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period.

However, the Court distinguished Rahman's case on the ground that charges had already been framed and the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence.

“The facts here are materially different. Charges have been framed and prosecution evidence has begun,” the Court held.

The Court also considered the defence's submission that only four witnesses had been examined and that the prosecution had repeatedly sought adjournments. It noted that the pace of the trial was relevant to the bail decision but found no sufficient basis on the available record to grant relief on that ground.

“The complete Trial Court order sheets are not before this Court, and responsibility for the pace of the proceedings cannot fairly be assigned on the present record. The custody undergone is substantial; at this stage, however, it does not outweigh the prima facie assessment of the record noticed above,” Justice Narula observed.

The Court also examined Rahman's medical condition. It noted that his request for an extension of medical bail had been rejected in January 2026 after considering a report submitted by an AIIMS Medical Board.

According to the report, the medical treatment required by Rahman could be provided while he remained in custody. The Court observed that the report did not indicate that the prescribed treatment could not be administered in jail or that his 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 Court held.

While dismissing the bail plea, the High Court directed the Jail Superintendent to ensure that Rahman receives the prescribed medical investigations, specialist consultations, physiotherapy and other necessary treatment in custody.

Advocates V Madhukar, Rakesh Sharma, Knishka Bhatt, Neeraj Kumar, Sakshi and Vikrant Chauhan appeared for Rahman. Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, along with advocate Narendra Kumar, represented the State.