Bail Orders Must Reach Prisoners Promptly: Allahabad High Court Issues Systemic Directions To Prevent Delayed Release
The High Court held that once bail is granted, it becomes a right of the undertrial to be informed immediately, emphasising that delays caused by administrative lapses, lack of jail details, or failure of officials to act defeat the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has issued a series of systemic directives to ensure that undertrial prisoners and convicts are released promptly after being granted bail by the Courts, stating that it is the right of an undertrial or convict to know about the bail order immediately.
The High Court stressed that personal liberty is a fundamental right, and once a court has granted bail, no individual should remain in custody due to administrative inefficiency, failure in communication, or corruption in verification processes.
The Court was hearing a bail application in a case registered under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A Bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while allowing the bail application, remarked: “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. Once a Court grants bail to an undertrial or convict, then it is the right of that undertrial or convict to know about the bail order immediately, so that he/she does not remain confined in jail because of the laxity on the part of the judicial system or jail administration or other instrumentality of the State. The Apex Court also showed its concern about the liberty of a man who has been granted bail in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (supra).”
Advocate Satya Priya Dwivedi appeared for the applicant, while the State was represented by the Government Advocate.
Background
The applicant had been put under arrest and had been in custody since 25.09.2025. After the filing of the charge sheet, he sought bail on the ground that he posed no risk of tampering with evidence or absconding. The prosecution did not contest the factual position that the victim’s statement contradicted the FIR allegation of enticement.
While granting bail, the High Court took notice of repeated instances where prisoners, despite bail orders, continued to remain in jail due to failures in communication, delayed dispatch of orders, difficulties in surety verification, or lack of technological coordination.
Court’s Observations
The Allahabad High Court, upon hearing the matter, held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on a personal bond and sureties. However, while allowing the bail application, the Bench noted that despite directions of the Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Re: Suo Motu W.P. (Crl) No. 4 of 2021), where the Apex Court mandated immediate sending of bail orders to jails, practical hurdles continued to cause illegal detention of bail grantees.
The Bench reproduced the Apex Court’s detailed directions mandating that bail orders be emailed the same day to the Jail Superintendent, entered in the e-prison software, and monitored by DLSA if release was delayed beyond seven days. It expressed concern that the High Court Registry was unable to forward bail orders directly because counsel frequently failed to mention the name of the jail in bail applications.
Calling this lapse unacceptable, the Court emphasised that once bail is granted, it is the right of the undertrial or convict to know about the bail order immediately, so that he/she does not remain confined in jail because of the laxity on the part of the judicial system or jail administration.
The Court also recorded complaints of corruption and delay in the verification of sureties, observing 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.”
Therefore, the Court held that “it is also necessary that verification of sureties should be conducted in the court premises itself through electronic process, so that the accused/convict, after getting bail, does not remain in prison even for a single day.”
The Court further noted that Jail Manuals already require prompt compliance with release orders and that inmates should ordinarily be released the same day. To ensure compliance, the Court issued a series of directions, stating:
1. Advocates must mention the jail where the applicant is lodged in every bail application.
2. Reporting Section of the High Court shall not clear bail applications after 01.12.2025 unless jail details are provided.
3. CPC of the High Court must coordinate with NIC to provide dedicated access to the e-prison portal for direct transmission of bail orders.
4. State authorities must establish electronic verification of sureties in court premises.
5. Director General (Prisons) must ensure the immediate release of inmates upon receiving electronic release orders through BOMS.
Conclusion
Allowing the application, the Allahabad High Court ordered the release of the applicant subject to standard bail conditions.
Cause Title: Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:193948)
Appearances
Petitioner: Satya Priya Dwivedi, Advocate
Respondent: A.G.A. for the State
