Can't Deny Liberty Over Minor Error: Allahabad High Court Orders Release Of Man Jailed 17 Extra Days Due To Name Mistake In Bail Order

Citing Article 21 of the Constitution, a bench of Justice Sameer Jain stressed that his liberty cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of a minor spelling mistake in the name of the accused in the bail-granting order.

The single judge passed the order on a correction application filed by the accused, in which he pointed out that HC's bail order dated July 8, 2025, mentioned his name as 'Brahmshankar' instead of 'Brahmashankar', omitting the letter 'a'.

The Court noted that his incorrect name was mentioned in the bail rejection order passed by the trial court (in April 2024), and the same was reproduced in the memo of the instant bail application, too. Therefore, the mistake was carried into the HC's order as well.

Before the bench, the applicant's counsel submitted that, due to this error, the accused had not been released from jail yet.

Taking note of the situation, the High Court said there was no need to correct the spelling of the applicant's name mentioned either in the memo of bail application or in the order dated July 8, 2025, passed by this Court.

Therefore, it directed that the applicant be immediately released on bail pursuant to the Court's July 8 order after verifying his other credentials.

However, before parting with the matter, the Court reminded the authorities of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. It remarked thus:

"…right of liberty of a person is his fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution of India and the same cannot be taken away on minor technical grounds like in the present matter".

Furthermore, the Court expressed a hope that in future, the authorities concerned will not withhold the liberty of a person on such minor mistakes.

The correction application was accordingly disposed of.

In related news, only last month, the Supreme Court heavily criticised 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 had 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.