“Travesty Of Justice”: SC Summons UP Jailer For Defying Bail Order, Calls Non-Release “Ridiculous”

The Supreme Court today expressed strong disapproval over the continued detention of a prisoner in Ghaziabad jail despite a clear bail order, terming it an “unfortunate scenario” and “travesty of justice.”

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh summoned the Superintendent of Ghaziabad Jail to appear personally tomorrow, while directing the DG (Prisons), Uttar Pradesh, to join via video conference.

Jail’s Bizarre Justification For Defying Bail Order

The court was hearing a plea alleging that the accused was not released because the bail order did not explicitly mention a sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, even though the main sections were clearly stated.

The bench dismissed this excuse as “ridiculous” and hinted at contempt proceedings if the jail superintendent’s actions were found deliberate.

Justice Viswanathan warned, “If we find that this sub-clause was the reason, we will initiate contempt proceedings because it’s a matter of liberty. Don’t take this Court for granted!”

Court Issues Ultimatum

The bench also cautioned the petitioner’s counsel, stating that if the allegation was false and the accused was detained in another case, serious consequences would follow, including possible withdrawal of the bail order.

Key Observations

The Supreme Court had granted bail on April 29, 2025, in a case under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3/5 of the UP Conversion Act.

The Ghaziabad Sessions Court had issued a release order, but the jail authorities refused compliance, citing the omission of “Section 5(1)” in the bail order.

The court noted this was a flimsy excuse, as the main sections were clearly mentioned.

Jail Superintendent to appear in person before the SC tomorrow. DG (Prisons), UP, to attend via VC. Contempt action likely if the jail’s justification is found untenable.

The court’s stern stance underscores that judicial orders cannot be disregarded on technical pretexts, especially when personal liberty is at stake.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International