Supreme Court: Offence Under Section 66 of Information Technology Act Is Bailable

 In our considered view, the High Court did not

take into consideration Section 77B of the IT Act,

which has to be read to ascertain the nature of

offence provided under Section 66 of the IT Act.

In such view of the matter, the view expressed

by High Court that Section 66 of the IT Act has not

been defined as a bailable offence under the IT Act,

stands set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2026

[@ SLP [CRL.] NO.6547/2026]

MAHARAJ SARAN  Vs  STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 

Dated: JULY 16, 2026.

Print Page

Patna HC: Whether an offence under the NDPS Act is bailable if it involves the seizure of a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs?

 As such, this Court unequivocally holds that the offence under Section 21(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one years, is to be classified as a 'bailable offence'. Accordingly, where the contravention under the N.D.P.S. Act involves a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as per the relevant notification, such offences shall be treated as "bailable" in nature. In the case of bailable offence, the right of bail is a matter of statutory right and in such circumstance, there is no any discretion available either to the police or the Court itself. The accused is entitled to be released on bail automatically upon arrest, subject only to the execution and furnishing of the requisite bail bonds or sureties, as may be directed. {Para 26}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 15800 of 2025 and 18113 of 2025

Decided On: 10.04.2025

Raju Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

and

Roshan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.

Citation:  MANU/BH/1283/2025.

Print Page

Whether the court can refuse to release juvenile on bail on the ground that offence is non bailable?

 A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act reveals

that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be

entitled to be released on bail with or without surety or

placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under

the care of any fit person. The distinction between bailable

or non-bailable offence has been done away with in respect

of a juvenile. In other words, every juvenile is entitled to be

released on bail except in circumstances where his/her

release will bring him/her into association with any known

criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or

psychological danger or that his release would defeat the

ends of justice. As per the Section 2 (12) of the Act, ‘child’

means a person who has not completed eighteen years of

age.” {Para 7}

8. Admittedly, the revisionist was about 17 years of

age at the time of incident. From the perusal of the FIR,

the revisionist was driving the offending vehicle at the

relevant point of time; it is a matter of evidence whether the

matter falls within the definition of Section 304A IPC or

Section 304 IPC. As per Section 12 of the Act, the bail can

be refused if there appears reasonable ground for believing

that the release is likely to bring that person into

association with any known criminal. The word ‘known’

has not been used by the Parliament without purpose. By

use of the word ‘known’, the Parliament requires that the

Court must know the full particulars of the criminal with

whom the delinquent is likely to come into association. In

the case in hand, there is no such evidence on record

regarding the same; both the impugned orders are silent

about it; the bail of the delinquent was rejected simply on

the ground that the offence is heinous in nature while

Section 12 of the Act is silent about it.

9. In such view of the matter, this Court has no

hesitation in holding that the Courts below had erred in

law in not releasing the juvenile on bail.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.226 of 2021

Ayaan Ali  Vs The State of Uttarakhand 

Coram: Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Dated: 16.02.2022

Print Page

Whether the court must hear victim while deciding bail application of accused in bailable offences under the SC & ST Atrocities Act?

Our final conclusions may be summarised as under :

(1) Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

2015 (1 of 2016) is not ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

(2) Section 15A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015, cannot be

termed as manifestly arbitrary.

(3) Section 15A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015, has to be

construed as mandatory and not directory. The

non-compliance of the said provision would render the

order null and void.

(4) Section 15A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015, in no

manner imposes any unreasonable restrictions or fetters

on the discretion of the competent court, for the purpose of

considering the plea of bail. The general principles with

regard to grant of bail would continue to apply even in

cases under the Atrocities Act.

(5) The right of a person, who is accused of committing

only bailable offence or offences, if any, under the Act, to

be released on bail, is absolute in view of the provisions

contained in Section 436(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. There is no provision in the Act which curtails

the right of an accused to get bail in a case of bailable

offence. The provisions contained in Section 15A(5) does

not, in any manner, affect the absolute right of a person,

who is accused of only bailable offence or offences, to be

released on bail.

(6) When a person is accused of committing only bailable

offence or offences under the Act, it is not mandatory to

grant opportunity of hearing to the victim or the dependent

as provided under Section 15A(5) of the Act in a proceeding

relating to granting bail to such accused. However, before

the court decides to decline such opportunity to the victim

or the dependent, the court shall thoroughly verify and

ascertain that the allegations against the accused disclose

commission of only bailable offence or offences under the

Act, by him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6369 of 2020

THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and

 MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA 

HEMAL ASHWIN JAIN (SHETH) Vs  UNION OF INDIA

CORAM:  THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH

and MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 06/08/2020

(PER :  MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

Print Page

Whether offences under NDPS Act punishable with imprisonment for less than three years are bailable?

 Para II of Schedule I to Cr.P.C. deals with the offences under other laws. Item No.3 in the list (in Part II of the First Schedule) provides that if the offence concerned(under the other law) is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, it is bailable and non-cognizable. Now the offence of possession of a small quantity (upto 1 kg) of Ganja, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, if proved, can lead to a sentence upto six months, and fine. By virtue of Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act, the offence has become cognizable, however, as per Item No.3 in the list(In Part II of the First Schedule) offence is clearly bailable.

9. This court in Hussain vs State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.11268/2017 decided on 01.09.2017 held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable where recovered contraband is less than small quantity as the offence is a bailable offence. Division Bench of Delhi High Court has also held in Minnue Khadim Ali Kuhn vs State Nct of Delhi(Supra) that where recovered contraband is small quantity offence is bailable.

Rajasthan High Court

Rajkumar S/O Heera Lal B/C Mewada vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 October, 2019

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13423/2019

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can refuse to accept the surrender of accused in bailable offence and direct him to surrender before investigating officer?

1) Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in a case where the accused is involved in bailable offences and he applies for bail under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he appears and surrenders before the learned Magistrate, whether Magistrate is legally bound to release the Petitioners on ail or he has to appear and surrender before the concerned police officer and furnish the bail bond? Another incidental question which is posed for the consideration of this Court s whether mere receipt of FIR by the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would amount to proceeding before the Court so as o attract Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

2)  Mr. Barot's reliance upon the said case for propoundings a proposition that receipt of the copy of the FIR should also be considered to be the stage of proceeding because the word 'proceeding' used in Section 436, is wide enough to include the proceedings other than the judicial proceedings is misplaced for the simple reason that even if the word "proceedings before a court" were to be construed in a wider sense and not in the restricted sense of judicial proceeding alone then also it would be necessary to have some proceedings before the court and mere receipt of the copy of the FIR by no stretch of imagination can be equated with a stage of proceeding judicial or otherwise. It is only for the sake of giving information to the Magistrate that the police is investigating such a case that the copy of the FIR is sent under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that receipt of the copy of the FIR by the learned Magistrate should also be considered to be the "proceeding pending" before the learned Magistrate, cannot be accepted.

3) In the present case as stated herein above, no proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate and therefore, Petitioner straightway cannot appear and surrender before the learned Magistrate and furnish the bail and request the Magistrate to release him on bail under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has to appear and surrender before the police officer in charge of the police station and furnish the bail and as observed by the learned single Judge in the case of Ramesh Amritlal Chhatral (supra) and even otherwise considering Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on giving/furnishing the bail by the accused, as required by the concerned police officer, an accused is entitled to be released on bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Special Criminal Application No. 2388 of 2010

Decided On: 02.12.2010

 Dinesh Babulal Thakkar Vs.  State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah, J.

Citation: 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 13836,2011 CRLJ 1364, MANU/GJ/1459/2010

Print Page

When Magistrate should not direct production of solvency certificate for release of accused in bailable offence?

 It is obvious that the criminal courts are not bestowing adequate thought and attention to the desirability of granting bail on personal bond in cases where such a course is called for. This leads to orders insisting on sureties and at times, as in this case, to orders requiring production of solvency certificates, which, as observed by the Supreme Court, is more often than not capable of generating a chain of corruption and resulting in unjust incarceration of the accused who deserves to be free. Courts would do well to remember that the purpose of insisting on sureties is only to ensure the presence of the accused in. court for the purpose of trial and nothing more. Where from the facts and circumstances in a given case it is possible to come to the conclusion that there is no likelihood of "bail jumping" by the accused who is released on personal bond it would be utterly arbitrary to insist on sureties. Even where sureties are insisted on, ordinarily, due weight must be given to the affidavits produced by the sureties and an enquiry or insistence on a solvency certificate must be the exception rather than the rule. The accused in this case is the driver of an autorickshaw. Evidently the accused ekes out has livelihood by plying the autorickshaw. In the process, he violated some provision of law, the maximum punishment for his offence being imposition of fine of Rs.100/-. Perhaps he might have preferred to offer cash bail of Rs.100/- or so. Considering the manner and source of livelihood of the accused, the court would have done well to direct his release on his personal bond. But, the court insisted on solvent sureties and when solvent sureties came forward with affidavits and Tax receipts, the court rejected the affidavits without indicating the reason for doing so. Rejection of affidavits would naturally involve serious consequences to the accused. Compelling him to produce solvency certificate would also involve serious consequences. An order involving such serious consequences should normally be supported by reasons which could be tested by the higher courts. It is regrettable that the learned Magistrate has not cared to indicate any reason for rejecting the affidavits. This was a case where the accused should have been directed to be released on personal bond or at any rate, released after accepting the sureties offered. At any rate, accused could have been released on interim bail, pending enquiry into fitness or sufficiency of the sureties. Accused, could have been spared the indignity of spending a night in prison; Courts entrusted with vast power are expected to exercise the power lawfully reasonably and justly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. M.C. 92 of 1984

Decided On: 28.03.1984

 Valson  Vs.  State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.L. Bhat, J.

Citation: MANU/KE/0230/1984

Print Page

Whether the court must obtain say of complainant while releasing accused on bail in the bailable offence?

Even if notice had been issued to the respondent before granting bail to the appellant, the respondent could not have pointed out to the court that the appellant had allegedly committed non-bailable offences. As observed earlier, what has to be ascertained by the officer or the court is as to whether the person accused is alleged to have committed bailable offences and if the same is found to be in affirmative, the officer or the court has no other alternative but to release such person on bail if he is ready and willing to abide by reasonable conditions, which may be imposed on him. Having regard to the facts of the case this Court is of the firm opinion that the bail granted to the appellant for alleged commission of bailable offence could not have been cancelled by the High Court on the ground that the complainant was not heard and, thus, principles of natural justice were violated. Principles of natural justice is not a 'mantra' to be applied in vacuum in all cases. The question as to what extent, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, will depend upon the facts of the case. They are not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality See State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma MANU/SC/0438/1996 : (1996)IILLJ296SC and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa MANU/SC/0177/2005 : (2005)IILLJ161SC . The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2009 

Decided On: 20.02.2009

 Rasiklal  Vs. Kisore

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

J.M. Panchal, J.

Print Page

Whether magistrate can impose conditions of depositing of passport and not travel abroad without permission while releasing accused in bailable case?

There are no such conditions which can be imposed while granting bail in a bailable offence under Section 436.

14. In Cri. W.P. No. 865 of 2007, Sultan Kamruddin Dharani v. The Union of India and Ors., decided by this Court on 19th September, 2008, a question arose, as to whether in a bailable offence under Customs Act, while granting bail, Court could impose condition to deposit Passport and not to travel abroad without permission. This Court (Coram A.S. Oka J.) observed thus in para 19:

Thus, the position of the law is that a person who is alleged to have committed a bailable offence has an unfettered and absolute right to be enlarged on bail and the Court or the Police Officer concerned, as the case may be, has no discretion to grant or refuse bail. Subject to first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 436 of the Code of 1973, the Court may modulate the condition of bail as regards the bail amount and the number of sureties. However, the Court cannot impose a condition which is not a term as to the bail. The condition of requiring a person accused of a bailable offence to surrender his passport to the court is not a term as to bail. If in such a case a condition is imposed that bail is granted subject to condition of deposit of passport, such a condition will defeat the absolute right of the accused under Section 436(1) of the said Code to be set at liberty. In the circumstances, while enlarging the Petitioner on bail in a bailable offence, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct deposit of the passport. The Magistrate cannot impose a condition while granting bail in a bailable offence of not leaving India without the permission of the Court. Whenever the Petitioner is enlarged on bail he is bound to attend the concerned Court on the date fixed or whenever he is called upon to do so. This obligation is created by the bail bond. If he desires to remain absent, he will have to seek an exemption from the Court. In a given case if there is an apprehension that the accused is likely to abscond, steps can also be taken under the appropriate provisions of law. Steps can be also taken for impounding the passport.In bailable offence no conditions can be imposed except about appearance before a Court at particular place or on particular date.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2009

Decided On: 23.06.2010

Stefan Mueller Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Whether magistrate should inform accused prosecuted for the bailable offence of his right to be released on bail?

It is well settled position of law that if the offence is bailable, the accused is entitled to be released on bail and even where he does not make an application for bail, it is the responsibility of the concerned police officer, if he has arrested or detained the accused for a bailable offence, to inform him about his right to be released on bail. Similarly, it is also settled position of law that where a person accused of bailable offence appears or is produced before a Magistrate, it is responsibility of such Magistrate to inform him of his right to be released on bail. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2009

Decided On: 23.06.2010

Stefan Mueller Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.H. Bhatia, J.

Print Page

Whether appeal against acquittal in bailable and non-cognizable offences is maintainable before session court?

It is not disputed that Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are bailable and non-cognizable offences. Similar is the position with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, keeping in view that the main offences for the commission of which the accused were charged are bailable and non-cognizable. In these circumstances, it is but apparent that the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi was not maintainable and was hit by provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section(1) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

Pushap Raj and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 

Cr. Revision No. 168 of 2010

Decided on March 16, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine HP 282

Print Page

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in case of dishonour of cheque?

 At the outset, it is needless to point out that this petition is not at all maintainable, since the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is bailable. Though there may be apprehension of arrest at the hands of the police, still for the said apprehension, a petition for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. The relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is available only in respect of a case involving non-bailable offence.

Subsequently, in R.K.Krishna Kumar v. State of Assam and others, AIR 1998 SC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 has held as follows:-

"11. ...... However, when those material allegations levelled against the appellants are considered vis-a-vis the 'unlawful activities' envisaged under the Act it cannot be said that they are liable for an offence under Section 13 of the Act, much less under the aforesaid offences under the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, the question of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot and does not arise for an offence under Section 10 of the Act is bailable; and a direction under the former can be issued only in respect of a non-bailable offence. Viewed in that context the merits of the appellants contention that they have not committed any offence alleged against them need not be gone into."

[Emphasis supplied] Similarly, in Joginder @ Jindi v. State of Haryana , 2008 (10) SCC 138, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"Since the petitioner alleges that the offences charged are bailable offences, the High Court was not justified in holding that custodial interrogation was necessary. Section 438 Cr.P.C. in terms relates to non-bailable offences." Therefore, a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to bailable offences is misconceived, even if it is accepted that alleged offences are bailable. However, if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court."

Madras High Court

S.Kannan vs State Rep. By on 21 February, 2011

Print Page

Offence u/s 324 of IPC are bailable bombay high court

If   no   notification   giving   effect   to   the   amendment   in
question  i.e. amendment to the Fifth Column in the entry relating to
“Section 324 of the IPC”, has been issued till today, (which aspect is
undisputed) it means that the offence punishable under Section 324 of
the IPC, continues to be a “bailable” offence.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2012
MR.CHANDRA KANJAPPA KUCHCHIKURWE 
V/s.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE    : 14th DECEMBER, 2012.

Print Page