Supreme Court Summons UP Jailor For Ignoring Bail Order
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Despite bail granted in April, man still in jail under UP’s anti-conversion law; SC demands explanation from Ghaziabad jailor on June 25.
NEW DELHI: Today, on June 24, the Supreme Court of India has strongly 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.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh expressed deep concern over the fact that the man, even after being granted bail in April, continued to remain in Ghaziabad jail.
ALSO READ: [Sexual Assault Case] SIT Submits Chargesheet Against Prajwal Revanna, HD Revanna
The reason given by the jail authorities was that a particular sub-section of a legal provision was not specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court’s bail order.
Taking serious note of this explanation, the bench said,
“It is a travesty of justice.”
The court was visibly upset over the bureaucratic approach being taken in matters involving personal liberty.
The man in question was booked under the anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh, officially known as the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The law has been controversial, with several cases alleging misuse.
Despite being granted relief by the highest court in April, he was not released due to a technicality — the omission of a sub-section of the provision under which he had been charged.
The bench stated,
“He is not released on the ground that a sub-section of the provision was not mentioned in the order.”
This led the court to question how such a detail could obstruct the execution of a Supreme Court directive.
The judges were of the opinion that such excuses undermine the authority of the court and affect the individual’s right to freedom.
They observed that such administrative hurdles must not be allowed to frustrate bail orders granted by constitutional courts.
To ensure accountability, the Supreme Court ordered the superintendent jailor of the district jail in Ghaziabad to be personally present before the court on Tuesday, June 25.
This rare move reflects the court’s serious intent to address negligence in the implementation of its orders.
The bench added that the delay due to omission of technical details in the bail order cannot be justified, and the freedom of a person cannot be held hostage to such procedural lapses.
“It is a travesty of justice,” the bench repeated, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
CASE TITLE:
AFTAB vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
Click Here to Read More Reports on Bike Taxi Case
