Supreme Court Rebukes Ghaziabad Jail Authorities Over Two-Month Delay in Releasing Bail-Granted to Accused; Slams Bureaucratic Apathy

 

In a scathing observation that highlights growing concerns over bureaucratic indifference within the prison system, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday expressed grave dissatisfaction over the prolonged incarceration of an accused who had been granted bail nearly two months ago.

Despite a clear and categorical bail order issued by the apex court on April 29, 2025, the individual remains lodged in Ghaziabad district jail, reportedly due to a minor technical omission in the judicial order.

A bench comprising Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice N K Singh came down heavily on the prison authorities for what it called an unjust and unacceptable delay in upholding a Supreme Court directive.

The judges questioned how a simple clerical or interpretive issue—relating to the omission of a sub-clause reference—could be allowed to override a direct and binding bail order issued by the country’s highest court.

“Don’t take the Supreme Court for granted,” warned Justice Viswanathan, his words resonating with the court’s frustration at the casual approach adopted by jail officials and potentially by other sections of the state machinery in enforcing judicial orders.

The case has also drawn attention to a deeper malaise: the growing public perception that the police and jail administration often function with impunity, insulated from accountability, and oblivious to the human cost of procedural lapses.

For many, this incident only reinforces the widely held view that the system tends to treat individuals as files and cases, rather than as human beings with rights.

The Case in Question

The accused was granted bail on April 29, 2025, by the Supreme Court in connection with an FIR filed under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The order, as per the bench, was unambiguous in stating that the accused was to be released on bail pending trial, subject to conditions laid down by the trial court.

Following this, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Ghaziabad issued a formal release order to the Superintendent of the district jail, explicitly directing the release of the accused unless his detention was required in connection with another case.

However, the accused’s lawyer later approached the court again, claiming that despite all procedural steps being completed, his client was still behind bars.

According to the lawyer, the jail authorities had refused to release the man because the specific sub-clause (Clause 1 of Section 5) of the 2021 Act was not mentioned in the court’s order, even though the sections under which the FIR was filed were indicated.

The bench was visibly disturbed by this revelation and emphasized the absurdity and injustice of keeping a person in jail due to such a technical pretext.

“It’s a travesty of justice that on the ground that a sub-section was not mentioned, the petitioner—who was ordered to be released—is still languishing in jail. This calls for a serious inquiry,” the court said.

Fallout and Accountability Measures

The Supreme Court has now taken a serious view of the matter and has directed the Superintendent of Ghaziabad district jail to appear in person before the bench.

Additionally, the Director General of Police (Prisons), Uttar Pradesh, has been asked to appear via video conferencing to explain how such a lapse was allowed to occur despite clear judicial instructions.

Justice Viswanathan also issued a warning to the petitioner’s counsel, stating that if it is found that the delay in release was due to some other ongoing case or legal bar, then the court would take action against the petitioner for misleading the bench.

However, if the court finds that the accused was indeed kept in custody purely due to the omission of the sub-clause, then it would not hesitate to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the responsible authorities.

Erosion of Public Trust

This episode is likely to deepen the already fragile trust that the general public places in the criminal justice system, particularly in the functioning of jail authorities and law enforcement.

For many ordinary citizens, such incidents reinforce the perception that while the judiciary may deliver justice on paper, its implementation is often at the mercy of a bureaucratic machinery that may ignore, delay, or distort orders with impunity.

The image of a citizen continuing to languish in jail—despite receiving relief from the country’s top court—underscores a stark and disturbing reality: legal victory alone is not always enough in a system where procedural gaps, institutional apathy, and a culture of impunity still hold significant sway.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s rebuke serves as a much-needed reminder that the rule of law must be upheld not only by passing judgments but also by executing them in both letter and spirit.

As the July hearing looms, the incident will likely serve as a litmus test of the judiciary’s resolve to hold erring officials accountable and restore faith in the system.