.png){kind=small}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
9 hours ago
4
ARTICLE AD BOX
In its order, the apex court noted, “This case presents a very unfortunate scenario.” (File Photo)
The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed serious displeasure over the fact that an accused, whom it had granted bail almost two months ago, has still not been released from the Ghaziabad district jail, allegedly because the order did not mention the sub-clause of the provision under which he was charged.
A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N K Singh directed the superintendent jailer of Ghaziabad district prison to appear in person, and the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (Prisons) to appear before it through video conferencing to ascertain what exactly happened.
“Don’t take the Supreme Court for granted,” said Justice Viswanathan.
Justice Viswanathan also cautioned the petitioner that it will take action against him if it finds that the non-release was due to some other reason, like detention in another case and not due to non-addition of sub-clause as claimed by him. Justice Viswanathan also warned that the court will initiate contempt proceedings against authorities if the petitioner’s claim is found to be true.
In its order, the court said, “This case presents a very unfortunate scenario.”
The petitioner, the bench said, was released on bail by its order dated April 29, 2025. “The order is categoric and states that the petitioner shall be released on bail during the pendency of trial” in the concerned FIR registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UP Prohibition Of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Act, 2021, on terms and conditions as may be be fixed by the trial court.
“After this order, the Additional District and Sessions Judge…Ghaziabad, issued a release order to the Superintendent, Ghaziabad district jail, authorising and requiring the Superintendent to release the accused forthwith from custody after furnishing a bail bond unless he is required in connection with some other case,” the order said.
Story continues below this ad
“After this order, it is stated by the petitioner that he is unable to secure his liberty because, in the order of the High Court and this court, clause (1) of Section 5 of the 2021 Act was omitted, and because of that petitioner could not be released. So contending, petitioner now seeks modification of the April 29, 2025 order, to specifically include Clause (1) of Section 5”.
The bench said the “concerned sections are clearly mentioned” in its April 29 order. “It’s a travesty of justice that on the ground that the sub-section was not mentioned, the petitioner who was ordered to be released, is to date kept behind bars. This calls for a serious inquiry. We direct Superintendent Jailer, District Jail, Ghaziabad, to be personally present tomorrow. Also, DGP Prison will appear on video,” the bench added.
English (US) ·