BREAKING | Injustice By System
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 25th June, The Supreme Court sharply criticised Uttar Pradesh jail officials for unlawfully keeping a man in Ghaziabad jail despite a clear bail order, calling it a serious violation of personal liberty and raising concerns over systemic injustice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India expressed strong disapproval of the jail authorities in Uttar Pradesh for keeping an individual incarcerated in Ghaziabad despite a court order granting him bail.
A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh highlighted that the delay in release was unacceptable and demanded an explanation from the relevant officials.
The case involved a man who remained in custody even after the Supreme Court clearly ordered his bail. According to the petitioner, the jail authorities cited the absence of a specific sub-section of the offense in the bail order as the reason for his continued detention.
The Jail Superintendent of Ghaziabad was present in the courtroom, while Uttar Pradesh’s Director General (Prisons), P.C. Meena, participated via video conference.
The court noted the violation of the accused’s right to liberty with great concern.
Also Read: “Travesty of Justice”: Supreme Court Summons UP Jailor for Ignoring Bail Order
Justice Viswanathan inquired,
“What is your position?”
In response, Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad stated,
“He has been released yesterday pursuant to the Court’s orders.”
However, Justice Viswanathan was not satisfied with this explanation.
He questioned,
“Is sub-section not mentioned a valid ground? I am not able to stomach this.”
He added,
“I see some other motives behind this.”
The judge pointed out that the Supreme Court had issued a clear order specifying the offenses, and the District Judge of Ghaziabad had accepted the bond and ordered the release.
He remarked,
“SC passes an order clearly mentioning the offenses. District Judge of Ghaziabad takes the bond and orders release.”
He questioned the jail authorities’ reasoning, asking,
“Does it make any difference that sub-section (1) was not mentioned? We don’t think it’s as simple as that. We want to get to the bottom of the matter.”
Garima Prashad informed the court that an inquiry had been initiated to investigate the delay.
She mentioned,
“DG P.C. Meena has instituted an enquiry yesterday at the level of DIG…DIG (Meerut) will see why the delay has happened. We fully abide by the Court’s orders.”
Justice Viswanathan emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating,
“This is about liberty. I am not going to leave this like it is.”
He directly addressed the DG (Prisons), asking, “Mr. DG Prison, what do you suppose to do for many others languishing in prison?”
DG P.C. Meena responded,
“We will see my lord and issue guidelines.”
In response, Justice Viswanathan strongly advised,
“Sensitize your officers. This is very, very serious.”
He warned,
“After the enquiry, if an officer is found guilty, he has to pay from his personal fund.”
He also mentioned,
“I will impose a cost of 5 lakhs to be paid to the accused. Now who will pay depends on the enquiry report which will be submitted. Who is enquiring??”
Also Read: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
Garima Prashad replied, “DIG Prisons Meerut.”
Justice Viswanathan then stated,
“We will order a judicial enquiry in this.”
He questioned the DG again,
“This court order needs to be obeyed. Mr. Meena, how can you ensure this doesn’t happen again?”
He raised concerns about the broader issue, asking,
“How many people are languishing in your prisons? UP is a big state.”
DG Meena answered, “90 thousand my lord.”
To justify the officers’ actions, Garima Prashad cited a previous order from the Allahabad High Court, stating,
“In this HC needed to make an amendment in the order as particulars of the prisoner to be released was not mentioned. Jail authority followed this as a circular.”
However, Justice Viswanathan was not convinced. He remarked,
“Don’t talk general, show me specifics.”
He stressed that this case did not involve a forged bail order, asserting,
“This is about forging of bail court orders. Here the case and order is genuine.”
As she continued to read from the High Court order, the judge interrupted, asking,
“Have you understood fully the HC order? If the case number is mentioned as is the case here, why delay?”
He criticized the jail’s reasoning as overly technical and unjustified, saying, “This is very hyper technical exception taken by you to keep a person behind bars. This is not good.”
As the discussion progressed, the judge grew increasingly concerned and declared, “If this is going to be your attitude to personal liberty I am increasing the cost to 10 lakh.”
He concluded with a serious warning,
“God knows how many people are in jail despite court orders. And you’re defending such acts for last 40 minutes.”
During the hearing, the court further asked, “Why he was not released on 27th May? Ok now the order.”
Later, while dictating the order, Justice Viswanathan observed,
“The fact that applicant was released yesterday without any further order from us makes it clear that SC order was very clear on particulars.”
He added,
“If basic particulars are there in order, there shouldn’t be any dispute on identification. Knit picking orders and not releasing individuals and keeping people behind bars is serious dereliction of duty.”
He also recorded the statement of the DG (Prisons), “Necessary efforts as recorded by DG Meena will be done to sensitize the officers, to see substance of order and not to look for minute errors.”
Then the judge passed the following direction,
“The enquiry in this case should be carried by a retd. district judge. HC of Allahabad to designate a distt. judge for this purpose.”
However, he later modified this and stated,
“The principal district and session judge, Ghaziabad, will carry the enquiry and gives report.”
Justice Viswanathan said the judicial enquiry must look into several issues, including,
“The enquiry should look if there was what reasons leading to delay in releasing the prisoner despite SC orders.”
In a final and powerful statement, the court recognised the serious nature of what had happened. Justice Viswanathan noted, “In total the applicant lost liberty for 28 full days. The only way we can remedy this is we order an adhoc monetary compensation.”
He then directed,
“We order the state of UP pays Rs 5 lakhs and report the same on 27th June 2025.”
He further added,
“After enquiry if individual responsibility is fixed, then this court will also decide if any part of this compensation will be realised upon those officers’ personal fund.”
Calling the entire episode regrettable, the judge said,
“The whole episode is unfortunate. Each officer was aware about all the details of this case and order.”
Concluding the order with a reminder of constitutional values, Justice Viswanathan stated,
“Liberty is a very valuable and precious right given by Constitution. This can’t be killed on useless technicality.”
He expressed hope,
“We hope this doesn’t happen again on similar technicality.”
Also Read: Jharkhand HC Slams Magistrate Ignoring SC Bail Guidelines: “Unfortunate & Unwarranted”
He also directed that the enquiry should examine whether there was any sinister motive at all should be looked into. Also if there was any gross negligence on part of prison authority in this episode. Also if single or multiple officers responsible for this and fix responsibility for the same.
Earlier, on June 24, the Supreme Court of India criticised the delay in releasing a man who had been granted bail two months ago in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The court called it a “travesty of justice” and directed the jail authorities to explain why the bail order was not followed.
Case Title: AFTAB vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
Read Attachment
