SC directs UP to identify undertrials still in jail despite bail, ensure release

The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to identify undertrial prisoners who continue to remain in custody despite being granted bail because they have been unable to furnish sureties or comply with other conditions imposed by trial courts.

Observing that the responsibility for ensuring their release rests with the state, the apex court said legal assistance must be extended to all such prisoners, irrespective of whether they are represented by lawyers appointed through legal services authorities or have engaged private counsel.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale issued the directions in its November 4 order while hearing a suo motu case concerning policy strategies for granting bail.

𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟬𝟬 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗱𝘆

During the hearing, the Uttar Pradesh government informed the court that 264 undertrial prisoners across 20 districts had been granted bail but could not secure release because they were unable to fulfil surety requirements or other bail conditions.

Of these, 158 prisoners had subsequently been released, while 106 remained in custody.

The state's counsel submitted that an appropriate decision would be taken regarding the remaining prisoners.

Taking note of the submissions, the bench directed the state government to undertake a comprehensive exercise in consultation with the respective District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs).

"Taking note of the submissions made, we direct the state of UP to undertake the exercise for the undertrial prisoners who have been granted bail but could not be released for want of compliance of conditions of bail, in consultation with the respective District Legal Service Authorities," the bench said.

The court was informed that the available figures covered only 20 districts and that a similar exercise was required in the remaining 55 districts.

The state's counsel assured the bench that the necessary steps would be taken within a reasonable period.

𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀

The Supreme Court made it clear that prisoners represented by private lawyers could not be excluded from assistance provided by District Legal Services Authorities.

The bench observed that there was no meaningful distinction between undertrials receiving legal aid and those engaging private counsel when both groups were unable to comply with bail conditions.

"The fact remains that both the categories are similar with respect to non-compliance of the bail conditions imposed," it said.

The judges emphasised that the presence of a privately engaged lawyer should not prevent a prisoner from receiving additional assistance through the legal services system.

"Litigation cannot be adversarial in that sense. Therefore, notwithstanding the presence of counsel appearing for the accused person who have been granted bail, further assistance can be rendered by the District Legal Services Authorities to them," the court observed.

The bench stressed that ensuring the release of prisoners who had already secured bail was ultimately the government's responsibility.

"In any case, the onus lies on the State to make sure that these persons are released from custody," it said.

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗯𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

The apex court also directed the courts concerned to examine cases brought to their attention by DLSAs and suitably modify bail conditions where necessary to facilitate the release of undertrial prisoners.

The directions are intended to address situations in which individuals remain incarcerated despite judicial orders granting them bail because they lack the financial resources or practical means to fulfil the conditions.

During the proceedings, counsel for the National Legal Services Authority informed the bench that monthly reviews were being conducted with the active participation of District Legal Services Authorities.

The Supreme Court clarified that its directions would apply uniformly across Uttar Pradesh.

"Needless to state that the aforementioned directions shall apply to all the undertrial prisoners spanning across 75 districts," the bench said.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 20.