Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Downloaded Copies For Bail Bonds, Eliminates Delay In Securing Release [Read Order]

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued significant directions allowing downloaded copies of bail or suspension of sentence orders to be accepted for furnishing bonds, eliminating the need for certified copies and ensuring the immediate restoration of liberty without bureaucratic delays.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Mandeep Pannu delivered this pragmatic ruling while granting suspension of sentence to a convict who had already served over eight years in custody for kidnapping and ransom charges.

The court heard CRM-18469-2025 in CRA-D-123-2020, filed by Amit Rana @ Meeta, who was convicted under multiple sections, including kidnapping for ransom (Section 364-A IPC), and sentenced to life imprisonment along with concurrent sentences for other offences.

The case originated from an FIR registered on May 17, 2018, at Police Station Sector 17-18, Gurugram, where complainant Upendra reported that his nephew Pardeep Singh had been kidnapped and the accused demanded ₹50,000 as ransom. The complainant arranged ₹20,000 and handed it over to the accused at Hero Honda Chowk, following which the victim was found injured near Sector 62, Gurugram.

The trial court convicted Amit Rana on December 5, 2019, imposing life imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom, along with 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder, and concurrent sentences for other offences.

While granting suspension of sentence, the bench considered several mitigating factors, including the convict’s custody period of “more than 8 years 03 months with remission and more than 7 years 01 month without remission,” the relatively modest ransom amount of ₹50,000, and the non-fatal nature of the gunshot injury inflicted on the victim’s leg.

The court noted an important legal distinction regarding Section 364-A IPC, observing that while there was a demand for ransom, “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.”

However, the most significant aspect of the judgment was the court’s directions regarding the acceptance of downloaded orders for securing immediate release. The court further observed that “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,” special provisions were necessary.

The court directed that “whenever the bail order or the order of suspension of sentence is 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.”

Additionally, the bench declared that “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 the case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy.”

The court further observed that if verification is required, “the attesting officer, if they wish to verify the authenticity, can do so by downloading and using the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.”

The judgment also mandated comprehensive personal identification details while furnishing personal bonds, including Aadhaar number, passport number (if available and deemed appropriate for flight risk assessment), mobile number, and email ID.

The court emphasized that “the furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order,” streamlining the entire process.

The bench clarified that its observations were “solely for deciding the suspension of sentence and will not influence the hearing of this appeal,” maintaining the distinction between interlocutory relief and final adjudication.

Case Title: Amit Rana @ Meeta vs. State of Haryana
 

[Read Order]