Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the applicant had been unlawfully detained for 28 days despite a valid release order. The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ad hoc monetary compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the applicant and initiated a judicial enquiry to determine accountability for the delay. The Court stated that individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution must not be compromised due to minor clerical omissions in court orders.

The matter arose from a Miscellaneous Application No. 1086/2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 2295/2025. The applicant was granted bail by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, on 27.05.2025. However, his release from District Jail, Ghaziabad, was delayed until 24.06.2025. This delay formed the core subject of the proceedings.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

Present during the hearing were the Director General (Prisons), Mr. P.C. Meena, and the Superintendent of Jail, Mr. Sita Ram Sharma, via video conferencing. Ms. Garima Prasad, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, appeared on behalf of the State.

According to the State, the release order passed on 27.05.2025 contained all relevant particulars such as the applicant's name, his father’s name, the crime number, the concerned police station, and the relevant provisions of law under which the applicant was charged, including Section 366 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. However, the order did not specify that Section 5 referred to sub-section (1), leading the Jailor to file a correction application on 28.05.2025. The release was held up since the correction application remained undisposed.

Upon questioning by the Court, Ms. Garima Prasad confirmed that all essential details were present in the original release order, and the only issue was the absence of the sub-section reference. The Court scrutinized the contention in light of a previous Division Bench judgment dated 12.09.2012 from the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4072 of 2005. That judgment had addressed similar issues about completeness of particulars in release orders.

The Court made several observations regarding the functioning of prison and court authorities in cases involving liberty of individuals.

"Contrary to what the learned Additional Advocate General is contending, the order, in fact, states that if there was sufficient reference of the concerned case or the ST number in which the bail has been granted, even Courts cannot insist on incorporating many other details before release of prisoners are effected."

"It is mentioned in the said judgment that from the reference of case and ST number, other details can be ascertained by the Subordinate Courts from their own records which normally remain available with them. If this is so for the Courts, there is no reason why this should not be the position for the Executive."

The Court acknowledged the issue of subordinate courts demanding detailed descriptions unnecessarily and viewed this as leading to the denial of liberty.

"The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has expressed its anguish over the disturbing facts coming to their notices through correction applications which are being filed in the High Court on the insistence of some Subordinate Courts to get full description of offences, crime number, Sections of the Penal Code incorporated in the bail orders and on that pretext refusing to accept bail bonds."

The Bench further stated: "We have been assured by Mr. Meena, Director General (Prisons), that he will sensitize his officers about the importance of respecting Court’s orders and about the importance of the liberty for an individual which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

"As long as the basic particulars are available and there is no dispute about identifying the individual, nitpicking of Court’s orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind bars is a serious dereliction of duty."

"The necessary efforts to apprise the Officers that what is important is to see the substance of the order of the Court and the endeavor should not be to look for irrelevant and trivial errors to deny the individual his liberty."

"In the present case, we are of the opinion that on this trivial non-issue, the applicant/petitioner has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days."

The Court issued the following directions:

The State of Uttar Pradesh shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to the applicant/petitioner as ad hoc monetary compensation for the loss of liberty suffered due to the delay. This compensation is provisional in nature, and compliance must be reported by Friday, 27.06.2025.

The Director General (Prisons) has instituted an inquiry to determine responsibility for the delay. The Court directed that the inquiry must be conducted not by the prison officials but by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The inquiry will ascertain whether the delay in releasing the applicant was genuinely due to the absence of the sub-section reference or if any other factors were involved, including potential misconduct or negligence.

The Court also directed that the Principal District and Sessions Judge must assess whether any officials of the prison department or other relevant officers displayed gross negligence.

Also Read: Muslim Woman’s Right To Seek Divorce By Khula Is Absolute And Unconditional | Consent Of Husband Not Required : Telangana High Court

Depending on the findings of the inquiry and final determination of compensation, the Court will consider whether a portion of the compensation is recoverable from officials held responsible.

The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to provide full logistical support and assistance to the Principal District and Sessions Judge in conducting the inquiry.

The Court dispensed with the need for personal appearances in the case and scheduled the matter for further listing on 27.06.2025 to report compliance regarding the compensation payment.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.; Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Y Yaduvanshi, Adv.; Mr. Azad Baig, Adv.; Mr. Pramod A.R. Nimesh, Adv.; Mr. Wasim Khan, Adv.; Mr. Parvez Alam, Adv.; Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

For the Respondents: Ms. Garima Prasad, A.A.G.; Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR; Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv.

Case Title: Aftab v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 1086/2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 2295/2025

Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh