PoliticsSupreme Court
Supreme Court tells UP to free under-trials who got bail but are still in jail, in all 75 districts
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale said the onus is on the state, after Uttar Pradesh reported that 106 of 264 such prisoners in 20 districts were still waiting for a decision.
Key points
- The Supreme Court said the onus lies on the state to get bailed under-trials out of jail.
- In 20 districts, 158 of 264 prisoners granted bail have been released so far.
- The directions now cover all 75 districts of Uttar Pradesh; the case returns on January 20, 2027.
The Supreme Court on Friday told the Uttar Pradesh government to make sure that under-trial prisoners who have been granted bail but are still behind bars are actually released, and widened the exercise to all 75 districts of the state.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale passed the directions in a case the court took up on its own, titled “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail”. The case deals with a long-running problem in Indian prisons: people who win bail but stay in jail because they cannot arrange sureties or meet the other conditions set by the court.
What the state told the court
Uttar Pradesh had looked at 20 of its districts. It found 264 under-trials who had bail but were still in custody, mostly because they could not furnish sureties or satisfy other bail terms. The state told the bench that 158 of them had since been released and that a decision on the remaining 106 was pending.
The bench said that a similar exercise was needed in the other 55 districts, and the directions it issued now apply to under-trial prisoners across the state.
Legal aid for everyone
The court said the state government must work with the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) to identify and help release eligible prisoners. It made it clear that this help cannot be limited to those already represented by legal aid lawyers.
“There cannot be any differentiation between the under-trial prisoners,” the bench said, between those who have DLSA help and those who have hired private counsel. Having a private lawyer, it said, is no bar to legal aid, because “litigation cannot be adversarial in that sense.”
The bench placed the burden squarely on the government. “The onus lies on the state to make sure that these persons are released from custody,” it said.
It also asked trial courts to take up the cases that DLSAs bring to them and to modify bail conditions where necessary, so that a surety a prisoner cannot afford does not keep them in jail.
What happens next
The state government assured the bench that the necessary steps would be taken within a reasonable time. The court will hear the matter again on January 20, 2027.