Supreme Court Corrects Punjab & Haryana High Court: Section 66 IT Act Is a Bailable Offence
A Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside the High Court’s finding that Section 66 of the IT Act is non-bailable, pointing to Section 77B as the provision that governs the offence’s classification.
The Supreme Court on 16 July 2026 corrected a legal error by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had treated Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as a non-bailable offence without reading it alongside Section 77B of the same Act. The Court, in an appeal filed by Maharaj Saran — father of the detenu — set aside that finding and clarified that Section 77B must be read to determine whether an offence under Section 66 is bailable or non-bailable. The underlying dispute arose from the detention of the appellant’s son at an airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular, with the High Court’s observation on bail classification carrying direct consequences for the detenu’s liberty.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
An FIR bearing No. 07/2024 was registered on 7 November 2024 at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Fazilka, Punjab. The FIR was for offences punishable under Sections 66, 72 and 84-C of the IT Act and Section 78(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On 13 December 2024, a Look Out Circular was issued against the detenu. He was subsequently detained at an airport pursuant to that circular.
Maharaj Saran, the detenu’s father, filed a writ petition — CRWP No. 12342/2024 — before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his son’s release. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 19 December 2024. While doing so, it recorded an observation that, ex facie, Section 66 of the IT Act had not been defined as a bailable offence under the IT Act. That observation was the sole issue that came up before the Supreme Court.
Maharaj Saran challenged that observation by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 6547/2026. The Supreme Court issued a limited notice confined to the legal question of whether Section 66 of the IT Act is a bailable or non-bailable offence, and on 16 July 2026 converted the petition into a criminal appeal after granting leave.
The Overlooked Provision: Section 77B of the IT Act
The core of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is brief but precise. The Court found that the High Court had not taken into consideration Section 77B of the IT Act. Section 77B, the Court held, is the provision that has to be read in order to ascertain the nature — bailable or non-bailable — of the offence under Section 66.
Because the High Court proceeded without reference to Section 77B, its conclusion that Section 66 had not been defined as a bailable offence was legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court set that view aside.
The Court did not elaborate on the substantive content of Section 77B in the order beyond identifying it as the relevant provision for classification. The order was directed at correcting the analytical error: the High Court had looked at Section 66 in isolation rather than reading the IT Act as a whole.
Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s observation that Section 66 of the IT Act has not been defined as a bailable offence. The appeal was disposed of with that clarification. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The bench comprised Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale. For the appellant, Mr. Abhinay appeared as AOR, along with Ms. Ritu Punj, Ms. Deepti Sarin, and Mr. Kartik Rajpurohit as advocates. For the respondents, Mr. Karan Sharma appeared as AOR, with Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, and several other advocates on record.