Supreme Court grants ₹5 lakhs compensation for delay in prisoner’s release after bail

In an hour-long hearing on 25 June, a Partial Working Days Bench of the Supreme Court batted in favour of an accused who spent 28 days in prison after the Trial Court had granted him bail. 

The case was heard by a Bench of  Justices K.V.Viswanathan and N.K. Singh. The judges noted that the delay in the release was caused due to an error in indicating the sub-sections of the provision in the Supreme Court’s order. They indicted prison authorities for relying on “hyper-technical and irrelevant” grounds to deny him liberty and awarded him a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. 

P.C. Meena, the Director General, Prisons, Uttar Pradesh, was present online. The Bench tasked him with sensitising prison officers on liberty and the need to comply with court orders without letting technical objections hinder the way. Meena assured the Bench that he would start the sensitisation process in earnest.  

The hearing’s overlap with the Emergency’s 50th anniversary seemed like history offering a quiet reminder.

Background

Aftab, the accused, was arrested under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for kidnapping or abducting a woman to induce her to marry. He was also accused of attempting forceful conversion of religion under Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. 

Before the Allahabad High Court, he had claimed that he had converted to Hinduism. He also submitted a certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Vedic Sanskar Trust to prove it.  The High Court, however, relied on the state’s allegation that he forced his wife to convert to Islam by abducting her and denied him bail. 

 On 29 April 2025, the Supreme Court granted him bail during the pendency of the trial. A Bench of then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar had noted that his parents are Hindu and Muslim and that Aftab’s marriage was arranged. But Aftab was released only on 24 June 2025.  

Cause of delay

On 27 May, the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Court No. 13, Ghaziabad, issued a release order directing the Superintendent of District Jail, Ghaziabad, to immediately release the accused upon execution of a personal bond. 

However, Aftab informed the Supreme Court that he remained in custody because the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court had omitted a reference to clause (1) of Section 5 of the 2021 Act. He therefore sought a modification of the Supreme Court’s 29 April order to explicitly include this clause. 

On June 24, the Supreme Court remarked that it was a “travesty of justice” that Aftab was kept behind bars for a missing sub-section. This calls for a serious enquiry,” the judges said. 

Details sufficient for identity, not release?

On 25 June, following the Court’s direction the previous day, Sita Ram Sharma, Superintendent of District Jail, Ghaziabad, appeared in person before the Bench. 

Also present was Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, representing the state. She attributed the lapse to an error in the lower court’s order. She informed the Court that the Jailor had filed a correction application on 28 May. However, since that application was not acted upon, Aftab remained in custody until 24 June. 

The Bench voiced strong disapproval at the state government’s attempt to distance itself from the delay in releasing the accused. The judges noted that the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 29 April had already specified all key identifiers: the case details, FIR number and date, the concerned police station and the relevant penal provisions. If these details were sufficient to establish the identity of the accused, the Bench questioned, why had the jail authorities withheld his release on the technical ground that clause (1) of Section 5 of the 2021 Act was not mentioned

Prasad conceded that the Supreme Court’s order carried all necessary identifiers, but was unable to justify the prolonged delay in disposing of the modification application or the continued incarceration on such a slender technicality. Raising concerns of possible mala fides, the Bench ordered a judicial enquiry to get to the bottom of it.

2012 High Court Order

Prasad argued that a 2012 Allahabad High Court Order prevented Aftab’s release. She claimed the Jail Superintendent had sought inclusion of specific details in the release order, relying on a 1978 High Court circular and Paragraph 99 of the U.P. Jail Manual, which requires complete particulars from the court before releasing a prisoner. 

The Supreme Court, however, found this reading of the High Court order incorrect. It noted that the 2012 order clearly held that if the case could be sufficiently identified, courts should not insist on unnecessary details. In fact, subordinate courts could retrieve additional information from their own records. “If this is true for courts,” the Bench observed, “there’s no reason it should not apply to the Executive.” 

Further, in Paragraph 12, the High Court had held that information requirements should not obstruct the restoration of liberty once a court-authorised release was granted. 

Directions of the Bench

The Bench directed that a judicial enquiry be conducted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The purpose of the enquiry, it said, was not only to establish the facts but also to determine whether there was gross negligence on the part of prison authorities or any other officials. If so, to identify those responsible. 

The Court acknowledged that the accused was eventually released after the Additional Sessions Judge amended the release order on 24 June to include the missing sub-section of the 2021 Act. 

“One thing is clear,” the Bench remarked. “The authorities knew what the relevant section in the 2021 Act was. They themselves moved for correction. The net result is a non-issue. The applicant lost his liberty for 28 full days.”

To address this grave injustice, the Bench ordered the state of Uttar Pradesh to pay an ad hoc provisional compensation of ₹5 lakh to Aftab. The state was directed to file a compliance report by 27 May.

“Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to the persons by the Constitution.  It cannot be bartered away on the altar of technicalities.  We only hope that no other convict/undertrial is languishing in jail on account of similar technicalities,” the judges wrote.