Supreme Court summons Ghaziabad jailer over bail order breach under conversion law case.
Case in news
Supreme court summons UP jailer for bail violation after a prisoner remained in jail despite a valid bail order.
Case overview
Case name – Aftab vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, MA 1086/2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 2295/2025
In a stern move, the supreme court, led by justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh, summoned the superintendent jailer of District Jail, Ghaziabad for failing to release a man granted bail by the apex court on April 29, 2025 . The petitioner, Aftab, was arrested under section 366 IPC and sections 3 and 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 .
Despite a clear bail order and subsequent release direction by the trial court, the jail authorities allegedly withheld release on the ground that clause (1) of section 5 was not explicitly mentioned . The court called this a “travesty of justice” and proposed contempt proceedings if the claim was true .
Key aspects
The key aspects relating to the case are as under –
- Petitioner was granted bail by the supreme court on April 29, 2025 .
- Trial court issued release order post bail, but jail authorities refused execution .
- Jail cited omission of sub-clause 5(1) under the 2021 Act .
- Court sensed procedural misuse, stating liberty cannot be held on technicalities .
Legal insights
The legal provisions relating to the case are as under –
- Section 366 IPC : Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel marriage .
- Sections 3 & 5, UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 : Penal provisions against forced religious conversion .
- Contempt of court : Non-compliance with a supreme court bail order can attract contempt under articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution .
- The court emphasized liberty is a constitutional right and cannot be denied for procedural lapses .
Court’s verdict
The court directed the jailer to appear personally and summoned the DG (Prisons), UP, via video conferencing . It warned of strict consequences, including contempt, if the petitioner’s continued detention was due to the omission of a sub-clause . However, it also warned the petitioner’s counsel that false claims would lead to serious consequences, possibly even withdrawal of the bail order .
Source- Supreme Court of India
Read also – Kidnapping
