<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>on directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay an interim compensation of Rs 5 Lakh to a Muslim man, for releasing him from jail 28 days after furnishing bail bond merely on a technicality, emphasising that liberty is a valuable and precious right.</p><p>The man was arrested under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. </p><p>The jail authorities declined to set him free as sub-section (1) was not mentioned in release order along Section 5 of anti-conversion law.</p>.'Travesty of justice': SC summons UP jailor for not releasing man despite bail.<p>Taking up his plea, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh said, "God knows how many such people were languishing in jails”. </p><p>The court deplored the conduct of the jail officials' insistence on a technicality, which violated right to liberty.</p><p>It ordered Ghaziabad principal district and sessions judge to inquire into the matter and fasten accountability on officers responsible for causing 28 days delay in the release of the man.</p><p>Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, Garima Prashad, and Director General Prisons, Uttar Pradesh, P C Meena, joined the court proceedings through video conferencing. </p><p>The jail superintendent of Ghaziabad jail was physically present before the bench.</p><p>Rejecting the defence of the Uttar Pradesh government's counsel, the bench said personal liberty cannot be denied on "useless technicalities" and "irrelevant errors" when the details of the case and the offences are otherwise clear from the bail order. </p><p>The bench made it clear to the state's counsel that it was not keen to accept the justification given by her that the prisoner was not released as the bail order did not mention one particular provision."Nitpicking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind the bar would be a serious dereliction of duty," the bench said.</p><p>The court also asked Meena, "What is the guarantee that many other people are not languishing for this reason? Order is by this court. The order mentions the correct section, and the section will have a number of subsections, is it a valid objection at all in your experience, What do you propose to do to sensitise officers?" </p><p>The officer assured the bench that measures will be taken to sensitise jail officials to avoid reoccurrence of such incidents.The court termed the delay of 28 days in the release of the petitioner as "unfortunate" and "preposterous". "On this admitted fact of denial of liberty from the morning of May 28 till yesterday evening, when he was granted his liberty, we will arrive at an ad-hoc figure, which will be provisional and we will keep it on Friday for compliance of that amount," the bench said.</p><p>Against the backdrop of delay in petitioner's release, the bench said the only way to remedy the situation is to order ad-hoc monetary compensation, which will be provisional in nature and ordered the state government to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs and report compliance on June 27.The court also made it clear that if the inquiry report fixes any responsibility on the officers, then the compensation will be realised from them. </p><p>The court asked the state government to file an affidavit to rule out that vested interests are not involved. “To say that 5 (1) is not mentioned can that ground can ever be taken in this country in any state and in any jail....police station wrongly mentioned, name wrongly mentioned is same as sub-section not mentioned….trying to teach a lesson to the Supreme Court," the bench said, objecting to the jail authorities' decision. </p><p>"One thing is clear that authorities knew what the concerned section was and on this non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for 28 days".</p><p>On April 29, the court had granted bail to Aftab, who voluntarily converted to Hinduism and married a Hindu girl according to Hindu rites. The girl’s aunt had lodged a missing person complaint. </p><p>The man was booked under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc) of the erstwhile IPC 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.</p><p>On Tuesday, the bench expressed its displeasure after being informed that the man has yet not been released from jail.The FIR was lodged on January 3, 2024 in Ghaziabad.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>on directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay an interim compensation of Rs 5 Lakh to a Muslim man, for releasing him from jail 28 days after furnishing bail bond merely on a technicality, emphasising that liberty is a valuable and precious right.</p><p>The man was arrested under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. </p><p>The jail authorities declined to set him free as sub-section (1) was not mentioned in release order along Section 5 of anti-conversion law.</p>.'Travesty of justice': SC summons UP jailor for not releasing man despite bail.<p>Taking up his plea, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh said, "God knows how many such people were languishing in jails”. </p><p>The court deplored the conduct of the jail officials' insistence on a technicality, which violated right to liberty.</p><p>It ordered Ghaziabad principal district and sessions judge to inquire into the matter and fasten accountability on officers responsible for causing 28 days delay in the release of the man.</p><p>Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, Garima Prashad, and Director General Prisons, Uttar Pradesh, P C Meena, joined the court proceedings through video conferencing. </p><p>The jail superintendent of Ghaziabad jail was physically present before the bench.</p><p>Rejecting the defence of the Uttar Pradesh government's counsel, the bench said personal liberty cannot be denied on "useless technicalities" and "irrelevant errors" when the details of the case and the offences are otherwise clear from the bail order. </p><p>The bench made it clear to the state's counsel that it was not keen to accept the justification given by her that the prisoner was not released as the bail order did not mention one particular provision."Nitpicking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind the bar would be a serious dereliction of duty," the bench said.</p><p>The court also asked Meena, "What is the guarantee that many other people are not languishing for this reason? Order is by this court. The order mentions the correct section, and the section will have a number of subsections, is it a valid objection at all in your experience, What do you propose to do to sensitise officers?" </p><p>The officer assured the bench that measures will be taken to sensitise jail officials to avoid reoccurrence of such incidents.The court termed the delay of 28 days in the release of the petitioner as "unfortunate" and "preposterous". "On this admitted fact of denial of liberty from the morning of May 28 till yesterday evening, when he was granted his liberty, we will arrive at an ad-hoc figure, which will be provisional and we will keep it on Friday for compliance of that amount," the bench said.</p><p>Against the backdrop of delay in petitioner's release, the bench said the only way to remedy the situation is to order ad-hoc monetary compensation, which will be provisional in nature and ordered the state government to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs and report compliance on June 27.The court also made it clear that if the inquiry report fixes any responsibility on the officers, then the compensation will be realised from them. </p><p>The court asked the state government to file an affidavit to rule out that vested interests are not involved. “To say that 5 (1) is not mentioned can that ground can ever be taken in this country in any state and in any jail....police station wrongly mentioned, name wrongly mentioned is same as sub-section not mentioned….trying to teach a lesson to the Supreme Court," the bench said, objecting to the jail authorities' decision. </p><p>"One thing is clear that authorities knew what the concerned section was and on this non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for 28 days".</p><p>On April 29, the court had granted bail to Aftab, who voluntarily converted to Hinduism and married a Hindu girl according to Hindu rites. The girl’s aunt had lodged a missing person complaint. </p><p>The man was booked under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc) of the erstwhile IPC 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.</p><p>On Tuesday, the bench expressed its displeasure after being informed that the man has yet not been released from jail.The FIR was lodged on January 3, 2024 in Ghaziabad.</p>
