Online Bail Order Sufficient For Release To Immediately Restore Accused's Liberty, No Need To Wait For Certified Copy: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a downloaded copy of a bail or suspension of sentence order is sufficient for securing the release of an accused.

The court clarified when the certified copy of the order is not immediately sent by the Registry, the downloaded copy must be accepted by the Court before whom bail bond is furnished.

A division bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu said,

"To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."

"There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the convict can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify it and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds," the court added. 

The observations were made while the Court was hearing a plea for suspension of sentence in a case pertaining to kidnapping for ransom. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with the co-accused, had kidnapped the complainant's nephew and demanded ₹50,000 as ransom.

It was alleged that after receiving a sum of ₹20,000, the petitioner fired on the boy's leg and abandoned him on the road. An FIR was registered in May 2018, under Sections 364-A(Kidnapping for ransom, etc), 307 (Attempt to Murder), 379-B, 482, and 34 of the IPC.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "Although there was a demand for ransom, which is one of the foundational distinctions between 364-A and 364, where the words “Ransom” are not in the provision, there is still another aspect, which is the absence of involvement or any pressure on the Government or any foreign State or inter-governmental organization, and in this context, on any other person."

However, it added that it does not intend to say that "Section 364-A is not prima facie attracted because it would be at the time of hearing the appeal, when such stage would arise."

Considering the time which is likely to take for the turn of this appeal for actual hearing, the amount of ransom being Rs. 50,000, coupled with the gun shot injury on leg (right thigh), which is a non-vital part of the body, and the applicant's custody of more than 8 years 03 months with remission and more than 7 years and 1 months without remission, the Court opined that there are "sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence."

In the light of the above, the plea was allowed and the Court stipulated that this order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, D.A.G., Haryana.

Title: AMIT RANA @ MEETA V/S STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 319

Click here to read/download the order