11 hours ago
SC orders ₹5 lakh damages, probe for Uttar Pradesh man jailed despite bail
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay an interim compensation of ₹ 5 lakh to a man kept in custody for nearly a month despite securing bail, as jail authorities cited a technical error in the release order. It ordered a judicial inquiry into possible lapses by prison officials. The court sought a deeper investigation. (ANI)
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh called Aftab's continued detention a 'denial of constitutional liberty'. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be bartered on this useless technicality. We only hope no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of such a technicality.'
The Supreme Court on April 29 granted bail to Aftab, who was charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Aftab was not released even as a trial court issued a release order on May 27.
The jail authorities refused to act on the order, citing the absence of a specific sub-section, Section 5(1), in the release directive of the 2021 law.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday described the prolonged incarceration as a 'travesty of justice' and summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually. It also directed the presence of the Ghaziabad jail superintendent.
Additional advocate general Garima Parshad informed the Supreme Court that Aftab was released on Tuesday at 8:42pm after the additional sessions judge (Ghaziabad) issued a corrected release order citing Section 5(1).
The Supreme Court called the explanation insufficient and deeply troubling. 'The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate,' the bench said. 'Each stakeholder in the process was aware of the sections involved, the crime number, and the offences with which the petitioner was charged. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin.'
The court sought a deeper investigation and questioned whether there was a 'vested interest' in keeping the petitioner in custody. It said the delay might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse.
Parshad submitted that an internal enquiry was underway as the court insisted on a judicial probe, requesting the Allahabad high court to designate the Ghaziabad principal district and sessions judge for an inquiry into the reasons for Aftab's continued detention from May 27 to June 24 when he was freed.
The bench directed the principal district and sessions judge to determine whether the omission of the sub-clause in the release order was genuinely the cause of the delay or if there was a 'more sinister' motive at play. It asked the judge to examine whether gross negligence had occurred on the part of prison authorities and identify specific officers, if any, responsible for the lapse.
Parshad argued the jail authorities acted under an earlier high court ruling, requiring detailed reference to all legal provisions in release orders. The Supreme Court rejected this justification after reviewing the ruling. 'Contrary to what...[Parshad] is contending, the high court order clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case number or sessions trial number, then courts themselves cannot insist on any further details before releasing the prisoner,' it said. 'For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days…the only way to remedy the situation is to order ad-hoc compensation.'
The court said the final compensation will be determined based on the judicial inquiry report. It asked the director general (prisons) to issue instructions for interpreting release orders substantively. The court recorded the officer's assurance that a broader review will be undertaken to identify cases where prisoners' liberty has been denied on technical grounds.
Aftab was arrested days after marrying a Hindu woman in January 2024 in a temple on the complaint of his wife's aunt. He was charge-sheeted along with his father for kidnapping and religious conversion through fraud.
