"'Hyper technical objection' taken to keep somebody behind bars": Supreme Court orders inquiry against jail authorities

Hyper technical objection taken to keep somebody behind bars: Supreme Court orders inquiry against jail authorities
X
"Where is the justification to hold him back in jail...you carry out your corrections...when the court makes an order, is it not your primary duty to obey..", a miffed bench asked in court today.

The Supreme Court of India today took strong exception to the approach of Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for keeping a man, who was granted bail in April this year, but had not yet been released from jail over a minor discrepancy in the order.

"When there is a valid order permitting his liberty..we are not concerned about what he has done..there are so many jails it is a vast state...to say that 5(1) is not mentioned Section 5 is mentioned...", said Justice KV Vishwanathan.

Court has accordingly directed the Principal District and Sessions judge Ghaziabad to conduct an inquiry and furnish a report focusing on the reason for delay and as to why the accused was detained beyond 27th May.

"State of UP to pay 5 lakhs and report compliance by this Friday. If any person is found responsible post the inquiry, we will see if personal liability is to be fixed on the portion of this cost", the bench further ordered.

The accused before court was booked under the UP Prevention of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.

Yesterday, the bench also comprising Justice NK Singh had asked the superintendent jailor to appear before court.

As the case was taken up today, Justice Vishwanathan said, "These are matters of liberty...we are not going to leave it like this...where is the DG Prisons?".

Court then went on to question PC Meena, the Director General of Prisons. "What are you going to do...is it a valid objection at all in your experience...what do you propose to do to sensitise the officers...you can address them on video call...sensitise them on liberty, on following court orders..", the court told Meena.

Questioning the state's attitude on liberty, the bench said, "Hyper technical objection has been taken to keep somebody behind bars..we have heard you enough...how did non-mention of bracket one, which is a punishing provision, become an impediment for his release..".

Case Title: AFTAB vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Tags

Next Story