The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹5 lakh as interim compensation to a man who remained in jail for nearly a month despite being granted bail, calling the episode a “denial of constitutional liberty” and a “travesty of justice”. The court also ordered a judicial enquiry into possible lapses by prison officials.
A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disapproval of the continued detention of the petitioner, calling it 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 technicality,” said the bench.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Aftab, who had been charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. He had secured bail from the Supreme Court on April 29, followed by a release order from the trial court on May 27. However, he was not released, as the jail authorities refused to act on the order, citing the absence of a specific sub-section – Section 5(1), in the trial court’s release directive.
On Tuesday, the court summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually and directed the Ghaziabad jail superintendent to be present in person.
{{/usCountry}}On Tuesday, the court summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually and directed the Ghaziabad jail superintendent to be present in person.
{{/usCountry}}Representing the state, additional advocate general (AAG) Garima Parshad informed the court that Aftab had finally been released at 8.42pm on Tuesday, after a corrected release order was issued mentioning Section 5(1) of the 2021 Act.
The bench, however, was far from satisfied. “The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate,” the bench remarked in its order. “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.”
Concerned that the delay might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse, the court sought a deeper investigation and questioned whether there was a “vested interest” in keeping the petitioner in custody.
While Parshad said that an internal enquiry had been initiated by the DIG Prisons, Meerut, the court insisted on a judicial probe. It requested the Allahabad high court to appoint the principal district and sessions judge (PDSJ), Ghaziabad, to investigate the circumstances that led to the prolonged detention.
The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something “more sinister”—was to blame. The enquiry will also identify any prison officials responsible for the lapse.
Parshad argued that jail officials had merely followed precedent, citing an Allahabad high court ruling that required release orders to mention all applicable provisions. But the Supreme Court dismissed this claim after reviewing the HC order.
“Contrary to what the AAG contends, the high court’s ruling clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case or sessions trial number, then no further detail is needed to release the prisoner,” it noted.
“For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days,” the bench noted. “The only way to remedy the situation is to order an ad hoc compensation.”
Accordingly, the court directed the state to pay Aftab ₹5 lakh as interim compensation, adding that the final amount would be determined after the judicial enquiry report is submitted.
DG (prisons), appearing virtually, was directed to issue a statewide instruction to all jails to interpret release orders substantively rather than fixating on minor technicalities. The bench also recorded the DG’s assurance that a broader review will be undertaken to identify other cases where liberty may have been wrongfully denied.
Aftab had married a Hindu woman in January 2024 in a temple as per Hindu rites. On a complaint lodged by the woman’s aunt, he was arrested on January 10, 2024, and subsequently charge-sheeted for kidnapping and for religious conversion through fraud. Following the release order, Aftab’s family had approached prison officials to secure his release, only to be informed that the jail register entries did not match the provisions cited in the Supreme Court’s order or the trial court’s release direction. This prompted the present application before the top court.