Supreme Court orders probe after jail authorities refuse to release religious conversion accused who got bail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered a judicial inquiry into the failure on the part of Ghaziabad District Jail authorities to release an accused, who was granted bail in April in a case of alleged forced religious conversion related to a marriage..The Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh asked the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to designate Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to conduct an inquiry into the matter."The enquiry will focus on the aspect whether there was any delay on enlarging the applicant / petitioner and as to why he was detained beyond May 27,2025. District judge to see if there was negligence or gross negligence in this case for delay and thereby fix responsibility for the same," the Court said.The matter will be taken for hearing next on August 18 for perusal of enquiry report. "State of UP shall furnish all support and assistance to the district judge to conduct this enquiry," the Court ordered..The Court also ordered the State to pay ₹5 lakh to the accused and report compliance on Friday. "Release order has all details and it is unfortunate that somebody has to undergo all this in this blistering summer. Each stakeholder was aware as to what the offence was, what the crime number was and what the offence was. The entire incident is unfortunate. Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to persons under the Constitution," the Court said.The Court added that a person's freedom cannot be taken away on basis of useless technicalities. It hoped that no other undertrial or convict languishes in jails on such technicalities..The Court on Tuesday had taken a serious view of District Jail's failure to release the accused granted bail by the top court in April. The accused Aftab, booked under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, had been refused release by the jail authorities over a purported reason that clause (1) of Section 5 of 2021 Act was not mentioned in the bail order. He had to then move the top court again with a modification application to seek addition of the same.Yesterday, the Court said that it was a travesty of justice that on the ground that a sub-section was not mentioned in the order, the accused was kept behind bars. Following the strict observations of Court, Aftab was released from jail on Tuesday itself..Today, Senior Advocate and Uttar Pradesh's Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad submitted that the DG Prisons has ordered an inquiry into the matter by Deputy Inspector General of Meerut range. However, the Court found it appropriate to order a judicial inquiry into the case. Expressing its anguish over the conduct of the jail authorities, the Court said it was a matter of liberty and it would like to know why the man was kept in custody despite bail."We do not know how many such are languishing in jails. When this court has given a valid order granting him liberty how can that be taken away. We want to rule out the vested interest part," it remarked."What message are we sending if we keep people behind bars.. despite our orders?," the Court further said.The Court added that its bail order was valid and not forged. Addressing the DG Prisons, the Court asked him what can be done to sensitize the officials. In response, it was submitted that guidelines can be issued."You address them on video, tell them about liberty and how orders have to be followed You know about article 144. That we have work in aid of the Supreme court. Ensure that not a single undertrial is languishing who is to be released by an order under your command," the Court said.The Court added that it would ensure necessary punishment in case any vested interest was behind the failure to release the accused. "Let us see the inquiry report. If anyone is to be blamed we will impose personal liability. Please know if officer is involved then cost has to be paid by the officer himself," it said..The Court then said it would direct the State to pay compensation to the accused and asked about the officer who will pay the amount."We will impose cost of ₹5 lakhs to be paid to the accused. Now who will pay depends on the enquiry report which will be submitted," it said. The Court also said the release of accused after yesterday's hearing itself showed that a court order was not required. "You released him yesterday itself and this shows that you did not need our orders and that you only kept him behind bars under hyper technical grounds. That is all. How did this modification etc become an impediment for his release," the Bench said.The Court questioned about the legal provision which states that jail authorities could keep a person in jail only because a sub-section was not mentioned in the bail order."If courts below [while issuing release order] do not insist how can jailers do so. We will increase the cost to ₹10 lakhs now if that is the attitude on liberty," it added..Aftab had been denied bail by the High Court in July 2024. He had alleged that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that he himself had converted to Hinduism and that victim on his own had gone with him. However, the prosecution had alleged that victim had been taken to Bihar and forced to accept Islam."It is a case where the girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had stated categorically that the applicant with the support of his family had got her to accept "Islam". She was forcefully taken to Bihar. Reliance placed upon conversion certificate by the applicant issued by the Arya Samaj is of no use as first information report has been lodged under Section 366 IPC and 3/5 of Act of 2021," the Court had said.However, the top court on April 29 had taken note of the fact that the marriage between the victim and accused was an arranged marriage and had taken place as per Hindu rites and customs. "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, including the position that the parents of the appellant, Aftab, are Hindu and Muslim, as well as the factum that it was an arranged marriage and the parties had gotten married as per Hindu rites and customs, we are of the opinion that the appellant, Aftab, has made out a case for grant of bail," it had said.