The Uttar Pradesh man stayed in jail for 8 months as his middle name was missing on bail Allahabad News

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad Supreme Court warned the superintendent of the county jail, Siddharthnagar to remain cautious about the release of applicants on her orders in the future. The prison guard held a man in illegal custody for eight months after he was bailed by the HC because his middle name, Kumar, was missing from the bail.
According to an earlier directive from the court, the district prison warden became Siddharthnagar Rakesh Singh appeared before that and submitted an affidavit stating that the applicant was released from prison on December 8, 2020. The court recorded the affidavit of compliance with the documents.
justice JJ Munir said, “This court has reviewed the prison guards affidavit. The explanation for the failure to comply with this court’s order and, consequently, for the delay in the applicant’s release, is reluctantly accepted. The personal presence of the prison guard is excluded. He is warned to remain cautious in the future. ”
The applicant’s name on the deposit was identified as “Vinod Baruaar‘whose application for bail was previously rejected by Siddharthanagar Judge on September 4, 2019 for additional sessions. So he filed a bail request with the Supreme Court.
On April 9, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered his release on bail. However, he was not released because the prison authorities refused to comply with the release order issued in this case, as the name mentioned in the order was “Vinod Baruaar” and his name on the pre-trial detention sheet was “Vinod Kumar Baruaar‘.
The court learned of his detention when he applied for a name correction. When hearing the motion, the court took its restriction due to minor technical issues seriously and ordered the applicant’s release.
The court then called the Siddharthnagar District Prison Warden and noted, “It is for technical reasons that the prison warden disregarded the Supreme Court bail by refusing to release the applicant.”
The court ordered that if the prison warden complied with the order, he should appear and explain why the department may not be advised to investigate him.