Despite its order, the Supreme Court has taken a strict attitude on the delay in the release of the prisoner. The court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to give a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the prisoner by Friday (June 27, 2025). The investigation of the case has been handed over to the Principal District Judge of Ghaziabad. The court has said that if an officer is found guilty in the investigation, the amount of compensation will be recovered from him.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court had said that on Wednesday, June 25, the jailer of Ghaziabad jail should appear in the court in person. The Director General of Jail of Uttar Pradesh should also be present in the hearing through video conferencing. As soon as the hearing started on Wednesday, UP Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad told the court that the prisoner Aftab has been released on Tuesday night at 8.40.
Garima Prasad stated the reason for the delay and said that after the Supreme Court order on April 29, the prisoner filled the bell bond and surety on 27 May. The order of release was issued from the lower court on 27 May, but this order did not mention a sub section of the law. On May 28, the jailer requested the lower court to amend the order. The lower court delayed doing so.
Justice KV Vishwanathan and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh’s vacation bench was not satisfied with this explanation. The UP lawyer also said that the Allahabad High Court had ordered the selection of the sections of the law written in the release order to be matched in the custody order in 2012. This is followed by every jail officer. On this, the judges said that the freedom of a person cannot be interrupted on technical grounds. The High Court did not ask for such unnecessary strictness.
The judges said that in the release order released on May 27, the details and case number of the prisoner and the police station are correctly written. The sections of the law have also been written. Simply UP has written Section 5 instead of Section 5 (1) of the illegal conversion prohibition law. Even after fulfilling the conditions of the bell for such a thing, the petitioner remained in jail for 28 days.
The Supreme Court asked UP Director General of Jail PS Meena what steps he would take to avoid such a situation? Will he ensure that the release of the prisoners under consideration is stuck by giving importance to the minor shortcomings of the release order? On this, the Director General of Jail said that he will hold a meeting of all the jail officers with video conferencing and will make them sensitive about it.
The judges said that if the orders of the Supreme Court will be stopped in this way, then what message will go in the society? The court also said that in the investigation, it should also be seen that the release of the prisoner was stopped only on technical grounds or the wrong intention of an officer was involved.
What is the matter?
A person named Aftab was booked on 3 January 2024 under sections 366 (kidnapping of minor girl) of IPC (kidnapping of minor girl) and UP illegal conversion prohibition law. On 29 April 2025, the Supreme Court ordered his bail, but was not released. Aftab had again filed a petition stating that the jailer has refused to release him for technical reasons.