Supreme Court: In an appeal against the order passed in a habeas corpus petition wherein Section 66, Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) was treated as a non-bailable offence, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., held that Section 77-B, IT Act has to be read to ascertain the nature of the offence provided under Section 66 and set aside the High Court order.
The appeal arose from the High Court’s order disposing of a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the appellant’s son. The appellant’s son had been detained at the airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular issued in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 66, 72 and 84-C, IT Act and Section 78(1)(ii), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
While disposing of the writ petition, the High Court had observed that Section 66, IT Act had not been defined as a bailable offence under the Act. The Supreme Court noted that it had issued a limited notice with respect to the legal issue involving Section 66, IT Act, which had been treated as a non-bailable offence by the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not taken into consideration Section 77-B, IT Act, which has to be read to ascertain the nature of the offence under Section 66. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s observation that Section 66, IT Act had not been defined as a bailable offence under the Act and disposed of the appeal with the aforesaid clarification.
[Maharaj Saran v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 6547 of 2026, decided on 16-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: AOR Abhinay with Ritu Punj, Deepti Sarin, Kartik Rajpurohit, Advocates
For the respondents: Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. and AOR Dr N. Visakamurthy with Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Kanu Agrawal, Saurav Roy, Rajeshwari Shankar, Vidushi Pandey, Yogesh Vats, Advocates
AOR Karan Sharma with Mohit Siwach, Advocate
