The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while granting bail to an applicant in a kidnapping case, has issued a series of significant directions aimed at reforming the “menace” of delayed prisoner releases. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed the U.P. government to establish electronic surety verification within district court compounds and mandated that advocates must specify the exact jail of an applicant in all bail petitions to ensure immediate communication of release orders.
The Court’s orders came during the hearing of a bail application, Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38294 of 2025), where the applicant was granted bail based on the case’s facts, including the victim’s own statement.
Background of the Bail Application
The applicant, Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali, sought bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2025, registered at Police Station-Saini, District-Kaushambi. He was charged under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The applicant had been languishing in jail since September 25, 2025.
Arguments Presented
Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satya Priya Dwivedi, contended that the applicant was falsely implicated. It was submitted that while the First Information Report (FIR) alleged the applicant had enticed away the first informant’s daughter, the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), “has stated that she herself left her house on her own.”
Counsel further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of one case and that a charge sheet has already been filed, negating the need for further custodial interrogation.
The Learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed the bail application but, as noted in the judgment, “could not dispute the aforesaid facts.”
The Court’s Decision on Bail
After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the Court granted the application. Justice Deshwal stated, “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”
The applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, subject to standard conditions, including cooperation with the trial and non-interference with evidence.
Observations and Directions on Systemic Delays
While granting bail, the Court addressed critical procedural failures that delay the release of undertrials and convicts, violating their fundamental rights. The Court affirmed, “The personal liberty of a person is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a person cannot be deprived of his liberty, except the procedure established by law.”
The judgment highlighted several systemic problems:
- Difficulty in Communicating Bail Orders: The Court noted that its own Registry finds it “difficult to directly send copy of bail order to the accused through Jail Superintendent” because bail applications often lack information about the specific jail where the applicant is confined. This impedes compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2024) 10 SCC 685.
- Corrupt Practices in Surety Verification: The Court made a stringent observation regarding delays caused by surety verification, stating it “came across a number of cases where, for want of verification of sureties, an accused-undertrial or convict remains confined in prison, even after getting the bail.”
The judgment further observed: “This Court is also conscious of the fact that some of the officials of revenue department as well as police department are involved in corrupt practice in the name of verification of sureties, which is a menace in the administration of justice.” - Delayed Release Despite Electronic Orders: The Court noted that even with the implementation of the Bail Order Management System (BOMS), jail inmates are often released only in the evening. This practice, the Court found, contravenes Rule-91 of the U.P. Jail Manual, which mandates “prompt compliance of release order.”
Five Key Directions Issued
To remedy these issues, the High Court issued five specific directions in the spirit of the Apex Court’s judgment:
i. Advocates are directed to “mention the jail details in the bail application” where the accused applicant or convict is incarcerated.
ii. The Reporting Section of the High Court is directed “not to clear any bail application… after 01.12.2025, unless the detail is mentioned” regarding the applicant’s jail.
iii. The CPC, High Court, Allahabad is to coordinate with the NIC to “get direct access to e-prison portal through dedicated ID” to allow bail orders to be sent promptly to the Jail Superintendent.
iv. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., is directed to issue directions “for ensuring the establishment of electronic verification of sureties in the district courts’ compound itself” in coordination with District Judges.
v. The Director General (Prison) is directed to issue necessary directions to all prison authorities “to release a jail inmate immediately after receiving the electronic release order through BOMS” instead of collecting orders and releasing inmates in the evening.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, U.P., the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Director General (Prison), and other relevant authorities for “necessary compliance.”
