New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday took strong exception in the case of an Uttar Pradesh man being kept in custody for nearly a month despite securing bail as jail authorities cited a technical error in the release order.
Calling Aftab’s continued detention a “denial of constitutional liberty”, a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh directed the UP government to pay him an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakh, and also ordered a judicial inquiry into possible lapses by prison officials.
“Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be bartered on this useless technicality. We only hope no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of such a technicality,” the judges said.
Aftab, who was charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, was granted bail by the Supreme Court on April 29, but was not released even after a trial court issued a release order on May 27.
Jail authorities refused to act on the order, pointing out the absence of the relevant section 5(1) in the release directive of the 2021 law.
‘Travesty of justice’
The Supreme Court described the prolonged incarceration as a “travesty of justice” and summoned UP’s director general (prisons) to appear virtually, also directing that the Ghaziabad jail superintendent be present.
Additional advocate general (AAG) Garima Parshad informed the Supreme Court that Aftab was released at 8.42 pm on Tuesday after the additional sessions judge (Ghaziabad) issued a corrected release order citing Section 5(1).
The top court said the explanation was insufficient and deeply troubling.
“The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate. Each stakeholder in the process was aware of the sections involved, the crime number, and the offences with which the petitioner was charged. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin,” the bench said.
‘Vested interest’ involved?
The Supreme Court sought a deeper investigation and asked if there was a “vested interest” in keeping the petitioner in custody. The delay in Aftab’s release might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse, the court observed.
AAG Garima argued that the jail authorities acted under an earlier high court ruling, requiring detailed reference to all legal provisions in release orders.
This justification was rejected by the top court after reviewing the high court’s ruling.
“Contrary to what AAG is contending, the high court order clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case number or sessions trial number, then courts themselves cannot insist on any further details before releasing the prisoner. For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days… the only way to remedy the situation is to order ad-hoc compensation,” the Supreme Court ruled, adding that the final compensation will be determined based on the judicial inquiry report.
Aftab was arrested a few days after marrying a Hindu woman in a temple in January 2024, based on a complaint by his wife’s aunt.
Aftab and his father were chargesheeted for kidnapping and religious conversion through fraud.
