HOW MANY INMATES ARE SUFFERING? BAIL GRANTED BY THE SUPREME COURT STILL NOT RELEASED FROM THE JAIL !

 

│HOW MANY INMATES ARE SUFFERING? │

│BAIL GRANTED BY THE SUPREME COURT STILL NOT RELEASED FROM THE JAIL │

 

Sidhant Malik

Advocate

+91 7011490440

CASE BACKGROUND:

A man, Aftab, secured bail from the Supreme Court on April 29, 2025, in a case under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3/5(i) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. Thereafter, the Ghaziabad trial court issued a release order on May 27, 2025, directing his immediate release upon bond execution — yet the Jail authorities did not release him. Want to know why?

A bench of Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh directed the state government to pay ad hoc monetary compensation of INR 5,00,000/- [Indian Rupees Five Lakhs Only] to the Accused, who was released from district jail Ghaziabad on June 24, after almost one month from the Order of his release.

The bench said the officers must be sensitized about the importance of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh said the Accused was released from jail on Tuesday and an inquiry has been instituted to ascertain why the delay had happened.

The bench directed that the inquiry be conducted by the principal District and sessions judge, Ghaziabad, and a report be furnished before it. The Apex Court also took strong exception after the Accused claimed that he was not released on bail on grounds that a sub-section of a provision of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was not mentioned in the bail order. The bench had noted after the apex court granted bail to the man on April 29, a trial court in Ghaziabad on May 27 issued a release order to the superintendent jailor to release the accused from custody upon execution of the personal bond, unless liable to be detained in some other matter.

The bench refused to accept the justification given by UP Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad that the prisoner was not released as the bail order did not mention one particular provision. The bench opined that the matter did not seem as simple as that and that there must be other reasons.

"Is sub-section not mentioned a valid ground to be taken by officers who are manning our prisons?" Justice Viswanathan asked.

"When there is no difficulty in identifying the prisoner and offences, nitpicking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind the bar would be a serious dereliction of duty," the bench observed in the order.

The bench stated that the "substance of the order" must be looked into and the authorities must not look out for "minor and irrelevant errors and on that pretext deny the liberty of individuals."

"If you keep people behind bars for this reason, what message are we sending?" Justice Viswanathan expressed concern.

"What is the guarantee that many other people are not languishing for this reason? Justice Viswanathan asked the UP DG. The officer assured the bench that necessary steps would be taken to sensitize the prison officials and that such instances would never recur. This assurance was recorded in the order. "It is your primordial duty to obey the order of the Court, whether right or wrong," Justice Viswanathan told the officer.

The attempt made by the UP AAG to defend the authorities by placing reliance on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court's judgment - as per which release orders must be issued only after verifying the particulars - did not find favor with the bench.

The bench pointed out that the High Court's judgment was dealing with the issue of forged orders, whereas in the instant case, the authorities had no difficulty in understanding the order as the omission was only clerical. "If this is your attitude towards personal liberty, we will increase the cost to Rs.10 lakhs," Justice Viswanathan warned the AAG.

BENCH ORDERS JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO LAPSES

The UP DG also informed that a departmental inquiry has been initiated into the matter. The bench however, was of the view that a judicial inquiry was necessary and directed the Principal District Judge, Ghaziabad, to undertake the same.

The bench said that the inquiry must focus on the reasons for the delay in the release of the prisoner and why he was detained beyond May 27, 2025 (the date of the release order).

The enquiry must also focus on whether the reason was the non-mention of the sub-section or was there was something more "sinister", and whether there was any gross negligence on the part of the prison authorities.

The fact that the authorities released the prisoner yesterday showed that they were aware of the substance of the bail order and that the minor omission was not substantive, the bench inferred.

"The authorities knew what the concerned section was and they themselves moved for correction. The net result is on this non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 whole days. The only way we can remedy the situation is to order ad-hoc monetary compensation which will be provisional in nature. We order that the State of Uttar Pradesh pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs and report compliance on June 27," the Court ordered.

Based on the final inquiry report fixing any personal responsibility on the officers and the final determination of the compensation, the Court will decide if any portion must be realized from the defaulting officials.

"Each one of the stakeholders was aware what the offence was, what the crime number was, what the sections the applicant was charged with. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin and notwithstanding the order of this Court on April 29 and the release order of May 27, which to our mind was clear as daylight, the applicant has been released only on June 24. Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person. It cannot be bartered on these useless technicalities."

AFTAB MADE HEADLINES — BUT HOW MANY MORE ROTS IN SILENCE, CAGED NOT BY LAW, BUT BY NEGLECT?

The Bench asked "We only hope that no other convict/undertrial is languishing in jail on account of similar technicality. DG(Prisons) has assured enquiry would be conducted on this aspect and it would be made sure that nobody suffers on this count.

When a pauper [a poor or indigent person] is granted bail by a competent court but is not released by jail authorities, their situation becomes doubly unjust because of the following reasons:

1. Lack of Legal Representation

• Most undertrial prisoners are from poor or marginalized backgrounds and cannot afford lawyers.
• Legal aid mechanisms are in place, but often ineffective, delayed, or inaccessible.

2. No Awareness of Legal Rights

• Many such inmates do not even know that they’ve been granted bail, or that they can challenge illegal detention.
• They may never get a copy of the bail order.

3. Physical & Procedural Constraints

• Filing a petition in the Supreme Court/High Courts involves:
• Drafting a writ petition [often under Article 32]
• Arranging affidavits, court fees, and procedural documentation
• Coordinating through advocates-on-record (AORs)/Advocates which is near impossible from jail.

4. State Apathy

• Jail authorities often do not inform higher courts or legal services authorities of such illegal detentions.
• There's no active monitoring by state legal services unless the case gets media or judicial attention.

IS THE COURT AWARE OF SUCH ACTS BY THE JAIL AUTHORITIES

Courts have time and again recognized that:

• "Liberty of a citizen cannot be hostage to administrative inefficiency."

— Delhi HC, Natasha Narwal Bail Case (2021)

• In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar [(1979) AIR 1369]:

The Supreme Court of India, highlighted how thousands of undertrials languish in jail without trial or remedy, leading to landmark reforms in legal aid.

WHY DO THE JAIL AUTHORITIES DELAY IN RELEASING THE INMATES?

1. Manual Bail Processing in Many Jails

• Despite technological advancements, many jails still rely on outdated manual systems for recording court orders and processing release documentation.
• Jail superintendents wait for physical documentation (bail orders, surety details) to arrive before initiating any release process.
• In rural or under-resourced areas, there is limited staff, poor coordination, and lack of proper training, making the system slow and inefficient.

2. Lack of Digital Integration Between Courts and Jails

• Although India has e-Courts and e-Prisons portals, these systems are not fully integrated.
• Bail orders are not automatically transmitted from court to jail. Jail officials often depend on court clerks, police escorts, or lawyers to bring the physical copy.
• There is no uniform platform across all states for real-time updating of judicial orders.

• Bail orders remain uncommunicated or unnoticed for hours or even days.
• In high-volume courts, the jail may not receive an authenticated copy at all unless followed up by someone.

 3. Police Verification and Surety Checks Take Time

• When bail is granted with conditions, such as surety or local verification, police are required to verify the addresses, income, and authenticity of the sureties.
• Local police stations, often overburdened, treat these verifications as low priority tasks.
• There is no strict timeline imposed for such verification, and it may take days or weeks, especially if the accused is from another district or state.

• Even after bail is granted, release is delayed until the surety is verified, leaving the person stuck in jail without legal basis.
• In some cases, police seek unnecessary clarifications from the court just to delay.

4. Non-Receipt of Physical Court Orders

• Many jails require physical copies of the bail order, duly signed and stamped by the court.
• If the lawyer or family does not deliver the order, or there is a delay from the court staff, the jail does not act.
• Sometimes, postal or courier delays (in inter-district or inter-state cases) lead to prolonged custody.

5. Deliberate Stalling Tactics in Politically Sensitive or High-Profile Cases

• In high-profile or politically sensitive cases, state agencies may intentionally delay execution of bail orders.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

• Strengthen Legal Services Authorities: Especially at district levels, with proactive jail outreach.
• Mandate Digital Execution of Bail Orders: Direct integration between court and jail via e-prisons and e-courts.
• Periodic Judicial Reviews: High Courts should regularly review lists of inmates granted bail but still in custody.
• Compensatory Jurisprudence: Courts awarding monetary compensation (as in Aftab’s case) should become more frequent.
• Public Interest Litigations (PILs): NGOs or individuals can move the High Courts or Supreme Court of India for systemic remedies.

CONCLUSION:

A bail order without execution is nothing more than a hollow promise. A lifeless document that mocks the very idea of justice. It becomes a cruel illusion, a paper right that never breathes life into the freedom it proclaims. For the impoverished soul who lacks the means to approach the court, the system is designed in theory to shield the weakest — instead renders him invisible, erased from the gaze of justice. He rots behind bars, not because he is guilty, but because he is poor.

The need to awaken legal awareness in rural India is not just a suggestion; it is a burning necessity. It is a national emergency of conscience. Until every villager, every daily wage worker, every marginalized citizen knows that justice is their right and not a luxury for the rich — the dream of a just society will remain a cruel joke. Awareness must rise like a storm — unstoppable, all-encompassing — until legal empowerment is not a privilege, but the air every Indian breathes.

 

Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025

 

│Supreme Court│Bail│Jail│Right to Liberty│Awareness│Order│05.07.2025│