Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Aftab vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.11 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No. 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-04-2025
in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India]
AFTAB Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
[ TO BE TAKEN UP AS THE FIRST MATTER. ] ... FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 141558/2025 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER
Date : 25-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Y Yaduvanshi, Adv.
Mr. Azad Baig, Adv.
Mr. Pramod A.R. Nimesh, Adv.
Mr. Wasim Khan, Adv.
Mr. Parvez Alam, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Garima Prasad, A.A.G.
Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR
Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. After our order passed yesterday, the Director
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by General (Prisons), Mr. P.C. Meena, is present on
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.06.25
19:39:52 IST
Reason:
video conferencing. Similarly Mr. Sita Ram Sharma,
1
Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh, is also present. We have also heard
Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State of Uttar Pradesh. At the very
outset, learned Additional Advocate General and
Director General (Prisons) informed the Court that
yesterday night, the applicant/petitioner herein has
been released from jail.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General contends
that the order dated 27.05.2025 of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh, which was a release order mentioned all the
details except that when it came to Section 5 the
sub-section (1) was not mentioned and as such a
correction application was moved by the Jailor on
28.05.2025. Since the said application was not
disposed of, the applicant/petitioner was not
released till yesterday.
3. We asked Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional
Advocate General after drawing her attention to the
release order as to whether the release order
contained all the necessary particulars like:- the
name of the detenue, the father’s name, the crime
number and the Police Station with respect to the
case instituted against him as well as the details of
the Sections of the IPC (Section 366) and the Sections
2
concerned under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (Sections 3
and 5). The learned Additional Advocate General
categorically stated that all the necessary
particulars do find mention and the only reason the
release could not be effected was because the
modification application filed before the District
and Sessions Judge to modify the release order to add
sub-section(1) of Section 5 was not disposed off.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General also drew
attention of this court towards the judgment of the
Division Bench dated 12.09.2012 in Criminal Appeal
No. 4072 of 2005 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad about the need to mention the particulars
in the release orders of prisoners.
5. We have carefully perused the order. Contrary
to what the learned Additional Advocate General is
contending, the order, in fact, states that if there
was sufficient reference of the concerned case or the
ST number in which the bail has been granted, even
Courts cannot insist on incorporating many other
details before release of prisoners are effected. It
is mentioned in the said judgment that from the
reference of case and ST number, other details can be
ascertained by the Subordinate Courts from their own
records which normally remain available with them. If
3
this is so for the Courts, there is no reason why
this should not be the position for the Executive.
6. In fact, in the judgment referred to the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has
expressed its anguish over the disturbing facts coming
to their notices through correction applications which
are being filed in the High Court on the insistence of
some Subordinate Courts to get full description of
offences, crime number, Sections of the Penal Code
incorporated in the bail orders and on that pretext
refusing to accept bail bonds. It is after expressing
anguish on that score, the Court recorded that what
was required was a sufficient reference to the case
and ST number.
7. We have been assured by Mr. Meena, Director
General (Prisons), that he will sensitize his
officers about the importance of respecting Court’s
orders and about the importance of the liberty for an
individual which is guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
8. As long as the basic particulars are available
and there is no dispute about identifying the
individual, nitpicking of Court’s orders and on that
pretext not implementing them and keeping the
individual behind bars is a serious dereliction of
duty.
4
9. We record the statement of Mr. Meena, Director
General (Prisons), that the necessary efforts to
apprise the Officers that what is important is to see
the substance of the order of the Court and the
endeavor should not be to look for irrelevant and
trivial errors to deny the individual his liberty.
10. We have also been informed that after our
order yesterday, the Director General (Prisons) has
instituted an inquiry for fixing responsibility of any
officer/employee who may be guilty and the Director
General (Prisons) is entrusted with the said task.
11. We feel that instead of the Director
General/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons)
conducting the enquiry in this case it should be
conducted by a Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The enquiry will focus on
the reason behind the delay in enlarging the
applicant/petitioner from prison and as to why he was
detained beyond 27.05.2025. The reasons given by the
State is the non-mentioning of sub-section (1) of
Section 5. Is that the real reason or was there
something sinister will also be enquired into.
Independently, the Principal District and Sessions
Judge will also enquire as to whether there was any
gross negligence on the part of the Prison
Authorities or other officials in this episode and if
5
there are any Officers who are responsible.
12. The applicant/petitioner has been released on
24.06.2025. Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional
Advocate General states that the correction in the
release order was carried out by the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh yesterday.
13. In the present case, we are of the opinion
that on this trivial non-issue, the
applicant/petitioner has lost his liberty for at least
28 full days. The only way we can mitigate the
situation is through award of an ad hoc monetary
compensation which will be provisional in nature. The
State of Uttar Pradesh will pay a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the
applicant and submit compliance report by Friday
i.e.,27.06.2025.
14. After perusal of the Enquiry Report, in case,
if there is any individual responsibility is fixed
and after the determination of the final
compensation, this Court will also decide if any
portion of the compensation shall be recovered from
such of those officer(s) on whom responsibility, if
any is fixed.
15. The whole episode to say the least is
unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders in this
6
process was aware as to what the offence was, what the
crime number was, what the Sections under which the
applicant/petitioner was charged with and what the
the punishment Section was? In spite of this, the
applicant/petitioner has been subjected to severe
hardship and notwithstanding the order of this Court
dated 29.04.2025 and the release order dated
27.05.2025 which to our mind is clear as day light,
the applicant/petitioner has been released only on
24.06.2025.
16. Liberty is a very valuable and precious right
guaranteed to the persons by the Constitution. It
cannot be bartered away on the altar of
technicalities. We only hope that no other
convict/under trial is languishing in jail on account
of similar technicalities. The Director
General(Prisons) has assured us that a thorough
enquiry on that aspect also will also be conducted by
him during the course of the next few days.
17. We further direct that the State of Uttar
Pradesh will render all assistance to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge who has been appointed to
enquire into the matter and furnish all logistical
support that may be required.
18. Personal appearances are dispensed with.
7
19. For reporting compliance on the payment of Rs.
5,00,000/-, list the matter on 27.06.2025.
(SONIA BHASIN) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
8