Supreme Court Summons UP Jailer For Not Releasing Prisoner Despite Bail Order
The Supreme Court today took serious exception to the non-release of an accused person from Ghaziabad jail, despite a bail order passed by the top Court, on the alleged ground that a sub-section of a provision under which he was booked was not mentioned in the bail order.
Calling for the personal appearance of the concerned Superintendent Jailer, a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh listed the matter tomorrow as first item. It further directed that DG (Prisons), UP shall remain present through VC.
Sensing “something fishy”, the Court called what transpired “ridiculous” and a “travesty of justice”, and proposed contempt action against the concerned authority if petitioner’s averments were found to be true. At the same time, it warned the petitioner’s counsel that if the allegation against the jail authorities was found to be untrue, consequences will follow for the petitioner – including withdrawal of the bail order.
“If we find that your statement is not correct, or that you are detained for due to some other case, serious action will be taken. But if we find that this sub-clause was the reason, we will initiate contempt proceedings because it’s a matter of liberty. Don’t take this Court for granted!”, said Justice Viswanathan. The order was dictated thus:
“This case presents a very unfortunate scenario. The petitioner/applicant was released on bail by an order of this Court dt. 29.04.2025. The order is categoric and states that the appellant/applicant shall be released on bail during pendency of trial in connection with case no…dt. 03.01.2024 registered at Ghaziabad UP for offenses under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3/5 of UP Prohibition Of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Act 2021 on terms and conditions to be fixed by Trial Court
After this order, the Additional District and Sessions judge, Court 13, Ghaziabad issued a release order to Superintendent Jailer, District Jail, Ghaziabad apprising and requiring the Superintendent Jailer to release the accused person from custody after he had executed the personal bond unless he was required in connection with some other case…this order was made on (a month back)…after this order was made, it is stated by the petitioner that he has been unable to secure his liberty because in the order of the High Court and this Court clause (1) of Section 5 of 2021 Act was omitted and because of that petitioner could not be released. So contending, petitioner now seeks modification of 29.04.2025 order to specifically include Clause (1) of Section 5.
As stated earlier, in order of 29.04.2025, the concerned sections are clearly mentioned. It’s a travesty of justice that on the ground that the sub-section was not mentioned, the petitioner who was ordered to be released, is till date kept behind bars. This calls for a serious enquiry. We direct the Superintendent Jailer, District Jail,, Ghaziabad to be personally present in Court (tentatively tomorrow). DG (Prisons), UP will appear on video.”
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
