NEW DELHI: Taking note of a delay in uploading a Punjab and Haryana high court order rejecting an anticipatory bail, Supreme Court directed that the steno book of the judge’s secretary be seized to find out when the order was typed and corrected. A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi noted that the order was of July 31, 2025, and it was not uploaded on the high court website up to Aug 20. They said a “discreet inquiry” be held and the report from the National Informatics Centre about typing and uploading of the order be collected. The top court bench noted that while considering the matter on Aug 20, it had sought a report from the registrar general of the high court. Hearing the matter on Aug 29, the bench said that from the report, it appeared the registrar general had sought an explanation from the secretary of the judge on Aug 22. It said the secretary responded on Aug 22. The top court noted the secretary had not replied when the order was uploaded, except to say the judge was undergoing some medical procedure and surgery between Aug 1 and Aug 20.”On the date of submitting the explanation by the secretary, the order was uploaded; however, this fact was mentioned by him,” it said. The bench observed that it appeared the order was not passed on July 31, and in fact, it was passed after the apex court’s order. “The steno book of the secretary be seized and it be found out on which date the order was typed and corrected on PC. A discreet inquiry be held and the report of PC, from NIC be collected regarding typing and uploading, and the same be filed on affidavit,” the SC bench said.It passed the order while hearing a plea against the rejection of anticipatory bail to a man. The bench issued notice, including to the state of Haryana, and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks. It directed that in the meantime, by way of interim recourse, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in connection with the FIR lodged at Faridabad, subject to the petitioner’s cooperation in the probe.The petitioner had told the apex court on Aug 20 that the order passed by the high court on July 31 was not uploaded on its website.
