- विज्ञापन -
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday instructed Uttar Pradesh to pay a provisional compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the delay in releasing an accused from Ghaziabad jail. The delay happened because a subsection of the anti-conversion law under which he was booked was omitted in the bail order.
The court directed the Ghaziabad Principal District and Sessions Judge to investigate the incident. If any individual is found responsible in the report, part of the compensation will be recovered from the implicated jail officers.
The bench, led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, urged the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Prisons to ensure that prisoners are not kept due to technicalities and to sensitize jail officials about respecting judicial orders and a prisoner’s liberty. The court ordered the UP government to pay the Rs 5 lakh amount by Friday and scheduled further hearings for August 18, including reviewing the investigation report.
Recently, the Supreme Court summoned the DG of Prisons and Ghaziabad Jail’s Senior Superintendent after the accused, Aftab, sought a modification of his bail order to specify Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The jail authorities had returned the release order due to discrepancies between the case details recorded in the jail register and the release order.
The court took a strong stance against the violation of judicial orders, directing Ghaziabad Jail Superintendent to appear before the court at 10:30 a.m. and the DG (Prisons) via video conference.
Earlier, on April 29, the Supreme Court had granted bail to the accused, noting his mixed Hindu and Muslim parentage, with his marriage conducted according to Hindu rites. The bench, led by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, ordered the accused’s release while the trial was ongoing in a case under Section 366 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the UP anti-conversion law. The court also instructed the trial court to set bail conditions, including providing a contact mobile number for the accused, but clarified that this order was not to be seen as a judgment on the case’s merits.
