Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Pay Rs 5 Lakh Interim Compensation To Prisoner Not Released Over Clerical Omission In Bail Order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the State of Uttar Pradesh for not releasing a prisoner from the Ghaziabad jail despite the bail order passed by the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs 5 Lakhs as provisional compensation to the accused, who was denied release for 28 days, over a clerical omission of a sub-section in the bail order and the release order. The bench observed that personal liberty cannot be denied on "useless technicalities" and "irrelevant errors", when the details of the case and the offences are otherwise clear from the bail order.

The Jail Superintendent of Ghaziabad Jail was physically present before the Court and UP DIG (Prison) appeared virtually as per the direction passed by the Court yesterday. At the outset, the bench was informed that the prisoner was released yesterday evening, after the Supreme Court took notice of his continued detention.

The applicant was arrested for offences under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3/5(i) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021. The prison authorities harped on the fact that the bail order only mentioned Section 5 instead of Section 5(i). In this backdrop, he filed an application seeking modification of the bail order.

Cannot nitpick on court orders; see the substance : Bench

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? What do you propose to do to sensitize officers?," Justice Viswanathan asked the UP DIG. The officer assured the bench that necessary steps would be taken to sensitise 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 favour 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 DIG 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 realised from the defaulting officials.

Terming the episode as "unfortunate" and "preposterous", the bench observed in its order :

"Each one of the stakeholders was aware what the offence was, what the crime number was, what the sections the applicant was charged with. Inspite 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."

"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," it added.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 687