Court slams delay in releasing Elgar Parishad accused, seeks jail official's apology

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed its dissatisfaction over its order directing the release of Elgar Parishad accused Ramesh Gaichor on interim bail not being followed by the Taloja Central Prison, which did not release him on September 9. The court has directed the Taloja jail superintendent to tender an unconditional apology by Thursday.

Advocates Mihir Desai and Sanskruti Yagnik, appearing for Gaichor, sought an urgent hearing seeking that the dates of release be changed as the procedure for his release could not be completed. Desai sought that the dates of interim bail be changed from between September 9 and 11 to September 16 to 19 so that Gaichor could meet his father.

A bench headed by Justice AS Gadkari on August 26, had granted temporary bail from 9 am of September 9 till 6 pm of September 11 (both days inclusive) to Gaichor to meet his ailing father. Before his release on temporary bail, Gaichor was directed to execute a PR bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 along with a cash security of Rs 25,000.

This cash security was to be deposited with the Superintendent of Taloja Central Prison. The bench had specified that after complying with these conditions, the Taloja prison would release Gaichor from Jail on or before 9 am on September 9.

However, this order was made available by the court on September 4 evening, and after that there was a long holiday in court as well as administrative departments were on holiday due to Ganpati festivities. So, the Rs 25,000 cash was deposited by Gaichor on September 9 before the Taloja prison.

The Taloja prison insisted that a "release bond/warrant" be procured from the sessions court, which is a general procedure followed by prisons in Maharashtra.

However, the bench of Justices AS Gadkari and RR Bhonsale questioned whether the High Court ordered the release of a particular prisoner, and why was there a need for the release bond procedure at the sessions court to be mandated by the superintendent. The bench said it was sheer high-handedness of the jail superintendent for which action needed to be taken against him.

Chief Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh, however, said this was generally a procedure followed to which even Desai agreed. Deshmukh stressed this happened only because of a certain misunderstanding on the superintendent's part. She said that such issues have cropped up earlier too.

However, when the court insisted, Deshmukh said she would communicate this issue to senior prison officials, and the superintendent will give a written apology to the court by September 11. The court then agreed to the same.

- Ends

Tune In