Did the SC order UP government to compensate Rs 5 lakh for delayed bail release?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 5 lakh as provisional compensation for the delay in releasing an accused. This decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to judicial orders, emphasizing the rights of prisoners and the accountability of jail officials.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ordered a Rs 5 lakh compensation for delayed bail release.
- The delay was due to an omission in the bail order related to the anti-conversion law.
- Jail officials must respect judicial orders to prevent unjust detention.
- The DG (Prisons) was instructed to ensure proper compliance within the prison system.
- Further hearings are set for August 18 to review the enquiry report.
New Delhi, June 25 (NationPress) The Supreme Court mandated the Uttar Pradesh government to provide a provisional compensation of Rs 5 lakh due to the delay in releasing an accused from Ghaziabad District Jail. This delay was attributed to the omission of a sub-section of the anti-conversion law in the bail order.
The Bench, comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh, ordered the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Ghaziabad to conduct an enquiry into this “unfortunate” situation. They emphasized that should the enquiry identify individual responsibility, a portion of the compensation would be recouped from the involved jail officer(s).
During the proceedings, Justice Viswanathan instructed the Uttar Pradesh Director General (DG) of Prisons, who appeared via video conferencing, to ensure that no inmate remains incarcerated due to such “unnecessary” technicalities. He urged the DG (Prisons) to raise awareness among all district-level jail officials about the importance of adhering to judicial orders and the significance of prisoner liberty.
The apex court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to comply with the order to pay the provisional compensation by Friday and scheduled further hearings, including a review of the enquiry report, for August 18.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court summoned the DG (Prisons) and the Senior Superintendent of Ghaziabad District Jail after the accused, Aftab, filed a miscellaneous application requesting a modification of the bail order to explicitly incorporate Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The application, submitted by advocate Abhishek Singh, stated that the release order from the Ghaziabad Additional District and Sessions Judge was rejected by jail authorities due to discrepancies between the case details recorded in the jail register and those in the release order.
The Supreme Court took a strong stance on this alleged breach of judicial orders, instructing the Superintendent of Ghaziabad District Jail to appear personally before the court at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, while the DG (Prisons) was to appear via video conferencing.
On April 29, the Supreme Court had granted bail to the accused, noting that his parents are from Hindu and Muslim backgrounds, and the marriage was conducted following Hindu customs.
In allowing the criminal appeal, the Bench led by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the accused’s release on bail pending the trial related to the criminal case registered under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The top court instructed the trial court to set the bail's terms and conditions, directing the accused to provide a mobile number for the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer to verify his whereabouts while on bail. The court clarified that the remarks made in the bail order should not be interpreted as an opinion on the case's merits.
Point of View
This ruling by the Supreme Court serves as a pivotal reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties. It underscores the need for accountability within the prison system, ensuring that no one is unjustly detained due to procedural oversights. Upholding justice and protecting rights must remain paramount in our legal framework.
NationPress
09/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What compensation was ordered by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay a provisional compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the delayed release of an accused.
Why was the release of the accused delayed?
The release was delayed because a sub-section of the anti-conversion law was omitted in the bail order.
Who was summoned by the Supreme Court regarding this incident?
The DG (Prisons) and the Senior Superintendent of Ghaziabad District Jail were summoned by the Supreme Court.
What did the Supreme Court instruct the DG (Prisons) to do?
The Supreme Court instructed the DG (Prisons) to ensure that no prisoner languishes in jail due to technicalities and to sensitize jail officials about judicial orders.
When is the next hearing scheduled?
The next hearing is scheduled for August 18, where the enquiry report will be reviewed.
