SC slams jail authorities for not releasing man on bail orders Rs 5 lakh compensation

     New Delhi, Jun 25 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for delaying the release of a man whom it granted bail on April 29 in a case under UP's anti-conversion law, and directed the state to pay him Rs 5 lakh as compensation.
     A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh observed that liberty was a "very valuable and precious" right guaranteed under the Constitution and the man had lost his liberty for at least 28 days due to a "non-issue".
     The accused was granted bail by the apex court on April 29 and subsequently on May 27, a trial court in Ghaziabad issued the release order.
     The top court was informed on Wednesday that the man was released from district jail Ghaziabad on June 24.
     The bench took strong exception over the delay in the man's release on bail for such a long time on the ground that a sub-section of a provision of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was not mentioned in the bail order.
     "God knows how many people are languishing in your jails inspite of court orders," the bench told the counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh.
     It passed the order on a plea by the man seeking a modification of the April 29 order to specifically include clause (1) of section 5 of the 2021 Act.
     The top court observed it was clear that authorities knew what the relevant section was and they themselves moved for correction before the trial court.
     "In the present case, on this non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days," it said.
     The bench continued, "The only way we can remedy the situation now is to order an ad hoc monetary compensation, which will be provisional in nature. We order the state of Uttar Pradesh to pay a sum of Rs five lakh and report compliance to this court on Friday (June 27)."
     It interacted with the director general of police (DGP) (prison), Uttar Pradesh, who appeared through video-conferencing, and a superintendent of Ghaziabad jail who appeared in person.
     "We only hope that there is no other convict/undertrial who is languishing in jails on account of similar technicality," the bench said.
     It took on record the DGP's assurance that he would sensitise his subordinates about the importance of respecting court orders and a persons' liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
     The bench was informed that the DGP had initiated an inquiry for fixing responsibility of officers or employees found guilty in the matter and the deputy inspector general of police (prison) was entrusted with the task.
     "We feel that instead of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (prison) conducting the inquiry in this case, the inquiry should be conducted by a district judge currently holding office," the bench said.
     It asked the principal district and sessions judge of Ghaziabad to conduct an inquiry into the matter and furnish a report to the apex court.
     "The inquiry will focus on the reasons behind the delay in enlarging the applicant/petitioner from prison and as to why he was detained beyond May 27," the bench said.
     It noted the reason given by the state was non-mention of Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the 2021 Act.
     "If that was the real reason or was there something sinister will also be inquired into. Independently, the district judge will also inquire as to whether there was any negligence/gross negligence on the part of the prison authorities in this episode and if there is any single or multiple officers who are responsible, the district judge will fix responsibility for the same," it said.
     The state's counsel said the trial court's May 27 order mentioned all the details except Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, a plea for correction was filed by the jail authorities on May 28.
     The lawyer said since the application was not disposed of earlier, the petitioner was not released.
     She said the man was released after the release order was corrected.
     "The fact that the applicant was released yesterday with no further direction from us clearly indicates that the particulars given in the release order of May 27, 2025 was amply sufficient to identify the individual," the bench said.
     The bench went on, "Nit-picking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind the bar would be a serious derelicition of duty to start with."
     Following the inquiry report, if there was any individual responsibility fixed on the erring officials, the court said it would decide if any portion of the compensation should be realised from them.
     "The whole episode to say the least is unfortunate," it said, calling the May 27 release order "clear as daylight".
     The bench posted the matter on August 18.
     "It is unfortunate that four weeks in this blistering summers, anybody had to undergo this," the bench said.
     Observing these issues concerned liberty, the bench said it would get to the bottom of the matter.
     The man was booked under section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc) of the erstwhile IPC and sections 3 and 5 (Prohibition of conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement) of the 2021 Act.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)