"Travesty Of Justice": Top Court Summons UP Jailor For Not Releasing Man Despite Bail

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was a "travesty of justice" that a man it granted bail to in April in a case under UP's anti-conversion law had not yet been released from jail.

A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh took strong exception after the man claimed that he was not released on bail on the ground that a sub-section of a provision of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was not mentioned in the bail order.

The bench, therefore, directed the superintendent jailor of the district jail Ghaziabad to appear physically present before it on June 25.

Observing that this case presented a "very unfortunate scenario", the bench further directed the Director General of Prisons of Uttar Pradesh to appear through video-conferencing.

The bench noted after the top court granted bail to the man on April 29, a trial court in Ghaziabad on May 27 issued a release order to the superintendent jailor to release the accused from custody upon execution of the personal bond, unless liable to be detained in some other matter.

"After this order was made, it is stated by the petitioner that he has been unable to secure his liberty because in the order of the (Allahabad) High Court and this court, clause (1) of section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was omitted and because of that, the petitioner could not be released," the bench noted.

The top court called it April 29 order "categoric" and said the appellant should be released on bail during the pendency of trial in the FIR of January 3, 2024 registered with a police station at Ghaziabad, on conditions set by the trial court.

The man was booked under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc) of the erstwhile IP and Sections 3 and 5 (Prohibition of conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement) of the 2021 Act.

The top court observed the petitioner has now sought a modification of the April 29 order to specifically include Clause (1) of Section 5 of the 2021 Act.

"As stated earlier, in the order of April 29, 2025, the sections concerned are clearly mentioned. It is a travesty of justice that on the ground that the sub-section was not mentioned, the petitioner... is till date kept behind bars. This call for a serious inquiry," the bench said.

The bench, however, cautioned the petitioner's counsel against making any incorrect statement.

"We are again telling you, if we find that this statement is not correct or that you are detained due to some other case, serious action will be taken. But if we find that this sub-clause was the reason, we will initiate contempt proceedings because it is a matter of liberty," the bench said.

The top court continued, "Don't take this court for granted." The matter would be heard on June 25.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)