- Apprentice Lawyer
Jail authorities of district jail at Siddharth Nagar in Uttar Pradesh who refused to release a man for 8 months because of missing middle name "Kumar" in the bail order, attracted the ire of Allahabad High Court which berated the "reprehensible conduct" of the jail superintendent.
In an order passed on December 7, the Court noted that the jail superintendent refused to comply with the release order passed in April this year only because the name of the applicant mentioned in the release order was "Vinod Baruaar", whereas in the remand sheet, it was "Vinod Kumar Baruaar".
A single-judge Bench of Justice JJ Munir said that it did not appreciate the fact that his order was flouted with such impunity in the guise of a "small technicality".
Although the applicant had made an application for correction of his name to the trial judge, his plea was logically refused.
The High Court opined that the conduct of the Jail Superintendent, who had refused to release the applicant, was not only reprehensible, but also contumacious.'
"The sole purpose of not complying with the bail orders for all these eight months appears to be, prima facie, an obstinate attitude of the jail administration in carrying out the orders of this Court. In the process, they have deprived a citizen of his liberty, without any just or reasonable cause, since April, 2020 till date," the Bench added.
The Court, therefore, ordered that the applicant, Vinod Baruaar, be forthwith released within 24 hours, in terms of the bail order dated April 9, 2020 passed by this Court.
Furthermore, a compliance report was directed to be submitted by the Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Act Cases), Court No. 2, Siddharthnagar to the High Court.
The concerned Jail Superintendent, Rakesh Singh was also directed to appear before this Court and explain why appropriate departmental inquiry may not be recommended against him.
Baruaar was later released and an affidavit filed in this regard by the jail superintendent was taken on record.
In an order passed on the very next day, the Court said that it was "reluctantly" accepting the explanation offered by the jail superintendent.
The Court then proceeded to close the case after warning the jail superintendent to be careful in future.