The Supreme Court recently ordered an inquiry into the delayed uploading of an anticipatory bail order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after finding that the order, though dated July 31, appeared to have been passed and uploaded only weeks later [Ajay Maini vs. State of Haryana & Ors.].
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal filed on August 16.
The Supreme Court did not disclose the name of the High Court judge.
Since the petitioner stated that the order of the High Court rejecting his anticipatory bail plea had not been uploaded, the bench had sought a report from the Registrar General of the High Court on August 20.
Pursuant to that, a report was submitted which disclosed that the order remained unavailable on the High Court website until after the Supreme Court intervened.
Interestingly, the Registrar General had sought an explanation from the concerned High Court judge's secretary only on August 22, and submitted a report three days later. By that time, the order was uploaded and delay was attributed to the fact that the judge was undergoing a medical procedure.
The bench noted that the explanation did not clarify when the order was typed and finalised. It observed that the circumstances suggested the order was not actually passed on July 31 as reflected on the High Court website.
“It appears that order impugned was not passed on 31st July, 2025, in fact, it was passed after the order by this Court,” the apex court said.
To verify the sequence of events, the Court directed seizure of the stenographer’s book and collection of records from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to ascertain when the order was typed and uploaded.
“The steno book of the Secretary be seized and it be find out on which date the order was typed and corrected on P.C. The discreet inquiry be held and the report of P.C., from NIC be collected regarding typing and uploading and the same be filed on affidavit,” the bench directed.
While issuing notice to the State of Haryana, the Court also granted interim protection to the petitioner, directing that no coercive steps be taken against him in the case.
The matter will be heard again after four weeks
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal along with advocates Ankit Sibbal, Rohitt Kumar Yadav and Ashish Batra.
The complainant was represented by advocates Nipun Katyal, Suchakshu Jain, Madhakant Bhatia, Dhananjay Kumar, Surya Pratap Singh Rana, Manan Sharma, Rahul Sachdeva and Shashank Shekhar.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was represented by advocates Kabir Hathi and Rahul Gupta.
[Read Order]