Supreme Court Slams Uttar Pradesh Over Delay in Releasing Accused: “How Many Are Languishing in Jail Over Technicalities?”

In a strong rebuke to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India recently expressed deep concern over the delay in releasing an accused person from jail—even after a valid bail order had been passed.

The case was heard by a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh, who were clearly disturbed by what had happened. Despite a release order being issued by a court in Ghaziabad, the accused remained in custody for nearly a month—a delay the Court called “preposterous.”

The Issue: A Technicality Gone Too Far:

The accused was granted bail under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. However, authorities delayed his release because the bail order did not specifically mention Section 5(1) of the Act—only Sections 3 and 5 were included.

Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh, Garima Prashad, tried to explain. She said the usual process is to apply to the lower courts to correct or clarify such technical mistakes. In this case, she claimed the delay happened because the lower court did not pass a correction order quickly enough.

But the Supreme Court wasn’t convinced.

Justice Viswanathan directly asked whether the bail order from the Ghaziabad court had all the necessary details to identify the accused. When the AAG admitted that it did, the Court questioned why the release was delayed at all.

“The fact that the applicant was released yesterday with no further direction from us shows the release order was sufficient,” the bench observed.

Judicial Enquiry Ordered:

Anguished by the situation, the Court has now ordered a judicial enquiry. A sitting District Judge will investigate why the release was delayed and whether there was anything “sinister” behind it.

The Court also directed the State to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as interim compensation to the accused for the unnecessary time he spent in jail.

Bigger Questions Raised:

Perhaps the most worrying part of the hearing was the Court’s reflection on the larger picture. With over 90,000 people in UP jails, how many others might be stuck behind bars due to similar technicalities?

“If you keep people behind bars for this reason, what message are we sending?” Justice Viswanathan asked.

The Court also summoned the Director General (Prisons) of UP to appear online, and the Superintendent of the concerned jail to appear in person. Both complied. The DG assured the Court that he would sensitize jail officers across the state and hold meetings with all Superintendents to prevent such mistakes in the future.

Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call:

This incident serves as a serious wake-up call for the justice and prison system. When a person granted bail by the Supreme Court is kept in jail for nearly a month over a minor technical detail, it points to deeper issues of delay, negligence, and possibly, systemic apathy.

Justice must not only be done—it must be done on time.