Synopsis: The jail authorities declined to comply with the release order solely on the ground that the name specified in the release order was incompatible with that stated in the remand sheet, the Court noted.
The jail authorities of the Siddharth Nagar district jail in Uttar Pradesh, who refused to release a man for 8 months because of the missing middle name “Kumar” in the bail order, attracted the ire of the Allahabad High Court, which denounced the jail superintendent’s “reprehensible behaviour.”
The Court noted in an order issued on 7 December that the jail superintendent refused to comply with the release order issued in April of this year only because the name of the applicant referred to in the release order was ‘Vinod Baruaar,’ while it was ‘Vinod Kumar Baruaar,’ in the remand sheet.
A single-judge Bench of Justice JJ Munir mentioned that it did not appreciate the fact that in the guise of a “small technicality” his order was flouted with such impunity.
The High Court noted that it was on that small technicality that the Jail Superintendent, by refusing to release the applicant, flouted the bail order of this Court. Our orders being flouted with impunity are not appreciated by this Court. This Court doesn’t really understand that if “Vinod Baruaar” is the name of the applicant referred to in the bail rejection order, then why “Kumar” has to be added to the name referred to in the bail order in order to make it effective.
Although the applicant had submitted an application to the trial judge for a correction of his name, his plea was refused.
The High Court held that the conduct of the Superintendent of the Jail, who had refused to release the applicant, was not only reprehensible, but also unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the applicant, Vinod Baruaar, to be released immediately within 24 hours, in accordance with the bail order of 9 April, 2020, passed by that Court.
In addition, it was directed that a compliance report be submitted to the High Court by the Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Act Cases), Court No. 2, Siddharthnagar.
Rakesh Singh, the Jail Superintendent concerned, was also directed to appear before this Court and to explain why no appropriate departmental inquiry against him can be recommended.
Baruaar was later released and an affidavit filed by the jail superintendent in this regard, was recorded.
The Court said in an order passed on the very next day that it was “reluctantly” accepting the explanation given by the superintendent of the jail.
After warning the jail superintendent to be careful in the future, the Court then decided to close the case.