Offence Under Section 66 Of Information Technology Act Is Bailable Supreme Court Overrules High Court Views
The Information Technology Act, 2000 is India’s principal law dealing with cybercrimes and electronic offences. Section 66 of this Act penalises computer-related offences such as hacking or unauthorised access to a computer system. In a recent order dated July 16, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Maharaj Saran vs. State of Punjab & Ors., clarified an important legal question: whether an offence under Section 66 of the IT Act is bailable or non-bailable that is whether an accused has a right to be released on bail as a matter of course or must specifically satisfy a court before being granted bail.
The case arose when the appellant’s son was detained at an airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular dated 13.12.2024. This Circular was issued in connection with an FIR registered on 07.11.2024 at the Cyber Crime Police Station, District Fazilka, Punjab, alleging offences under Sections 66, 72 and 84-C of the IT Act, along with Section 78(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The appellant being the detenu’s father filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus a legal remedy used to secure the release of a person who is illegally detained for his son’s release.
While disposing of this writ petition on 19.12.2024 the High Court made an observation, ex-facie, that Section 66 of the IT Act had not been defined as a bailable offence. This meant in effect that the detenu’s release could be made more difficult, since a non-bailable offence requires the accused to satisfy a court before bail is granted, unlike a bailable offence where bail is available as a matter of right. Aggrieved by this specific observation the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which had earlier issued a limited notice confined only to this narrow legal question namely, whether Section 66 of the IT Act is truly non-bailable, as held by the High Court.
After hearing counsel for both sides, the Hon’ble Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the High Court had erred in arriving at its conclusion, because it failed to take into account Section 77B of the IT Act. Section 77B is a specific provision that lays down how the bailable or non-bailable nature of offences under the IT Act is to be determined importantly , it states that any offence under the Act punishable with imprisonment of three years or less is bailable. Since this provision governs the very question the High Court had addressed, it could not be ignored while deciding whether Section 66 was bailable.
In view of this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s observation that Section 66 of the IT Act had not been defined as a bailable offence, and clarified that this offence is in fact bailable when read together with Section 77B of the IT Act. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with this clarification, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
This order is significant because it settles, in clear terms, that courts must read Section 66 of the IT Act along with Section 77B to correctly determine whether it is a bailable offence, rather than treating it as non-bailable merely because the Act does not expressly label it as such.