Punjab and Haryana High Court directs acceptance of downloaded bail order attested by advocate

Indian Express

2 days ago

In a significant direction aimed at cutting down delays in releasing those granted bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered that downloaded copies of bail or suspension-of-sentence orders from its official website, attested by an advocate, can be accepted in lieu of certified copies.
A bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Mandeep Pannu said this step was necessary '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'. The court added, 'Whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor… the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.'
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 bench directed. The order also states that there would be 'no need for a certified copy' for furnishing bonds and that any advocate for the convict can attest a downloaded copy as a true copy after retrieving it along with the case status from the court's website.
The ruling was delivered while allowing the application of Amit Rana alias Meeta, convicted in a 2018 Gurgaon kidnapping case, seeking the suspension of his sentence.
Rana was convicted under sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 307 (attempt to murder), 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), and 482 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court in December 2019 sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life for kidnapping for ransom, 10 years for attempt to murder, and shorter concurrent terms under other provisions.
His appeal was admitted in January 2020, and a division bench then stayed the recovery of the fine during its pendency. According to the custody certificate dated August 2, 2025, Rana has served eight years, three months, and five days in this case, including remission.
In the early hours of May 17, 2018, the Gurgaon police received a control room message about the kidnapping of one Pardeep Singh and a ransom demand near Ghora Chowk. The complainant, Upendra, an accountant from Uttarakhand residing in Sector 10, Gurgaon, told the police that he had received calls from the number of his nephew, Pardeep, demanding Rs 50,000 and threatening to kill him.
Upendra managed to arrange Rs 20,000 and handed it over at Hero Honda Chowk, after which the kidnappers claimed they had fired a shot at Pardeep's foot and abandoned him near Bhondsi Jail Road. The police later found Pardeep near Sector 62 in an injured condition and took him to hospital.
During the investigation, Rana and a co-accused, Ajay, were arrested in another Arms Act case and allegedly confessed to their role in the kidnapping. The police said Rs 8,000 was recovered from Rana and Rs 7,500 from Ajay following their disclosure statements.
While acknowledging that the ransom demand made the case fall within the scope of Section 364 A, the bench noted that there was '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'. The judges made it clear they were not deciding the applicability of the section at this stage.
'This Court 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,' the court said.
Suspending the sentence 'till further orders,' the court observed, 'The amount of ransom being Rs. 50,000/-, coupled with the gunshot 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… are sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence.'
The court ordered that Rana be released on bail if not required in any other case, upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court. The surety must be capable of producing him in court if he fails to appear, the court added.