IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

<>

ON THE 5

<>

th

<>

OF MARCH, 2026

<>

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10073 of 2026

<>

JEESHAN KHAN

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Mr. Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad - Advocate for the applicant.

<>

Ms. Samta Jain - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State.

<>

ORDER

<>

This M.Cr.C. is filed for modification of order passed by this Court on

19.02.2026 in CRA No. 1782 of 2026.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that bail papers

were furnished before the Criminal Reader of the learned Special Judge,

Jabalpur, Shri Suresh Kumar. The Criminal Reader pointed out that there is a

mistake in the order of this Court dated 19.02.2026 wherein out of 6

Sections, one Section is not mentioned in the bail order, which is Section

3(1)(s) of S.C./ S.T. Act relating to abuse of any member of a Scheduled

Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. It

is submitted that other Sections were mentioned correctly in the order, which

are Section 296, 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V), 3(1)(r) (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act.

It is submitted that in the concerned order, it was already mentioned

that the applicant is in jail since 10.07.2025. It is also submitted by the

1 MCRC-10073-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17610

learned counsel for the applicant that bail papers were furnished on

20.02.2026 but since the Criminal Reader choose not to put the bail papers

before the learned Special Judge and returned papers for correction of order,

therefore, his client remained in jail.

Heard learned counsel for the State also.

It is prima facie view of this Court that the procedure adopted by the

Criminal Reader of concerned Court is not valid. In fact, if he found anything

missing in the order, it was his duty to put the papers before the learned

Special Judge and the learned Special Judge was obliged to pass legal order

as he deemed fit.

The important points in a case are Case No. which is mentioned in the

order of this Court dated 19.02.2026, which is Special Case No. 261/2025,

Crime No. 485/2025 is also mentioned. The name of the accused Jeeshan

Khan is also mentioned, therefore, prima-facie to this Court, the order which

runs into three pages was sufficient so as to identify the accused and the case

for whom bail was sought to be furnished but by adopting wrong procedure

by the Criminal Reader the applicant was made to remain in wrongful

custody for more than 12 days, therefore, to satisfy the wrong notions of the

Criminal Reader it is mentioned that in the application filed by the applicant

for bail, Section 3(1)(s) of S.C./ S.T. Act was also mentioned, which has

been left out due to typographical error, but this was no reason not to put the

bail papers before the Presiding Officer of Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Aftab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; Misc. Application No.

<>

1086/2025 in Crl. A. No. 2295/2025; 2025 LiveLaw (SC)687

<>

has held thus :-

2 MCRC-10073-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17610

"2. Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the order

dated 27.05.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, which was a release order mentioned all

the details except that when it came to Section 5 the sub- section

(1) was not mentioned and as such a correction application was

moved by the Jailor on 28.05.2025. Since the said application was

not disposed of, the applicant/petitioner was not released till

yesterday.

3. We asked Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate

General after drawing her attention to the release order as to

whether the release order contained all the necessary particulars

like:- the name of the detenue, the father’s name, the crime

number and the Police Station with respect to the case instituted

against him as well as the details of the Sections of the IPC

(Section 366) and the Sections concerned under the Uttar Pradesh

Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021

(Sections 3 and 5). The learned Additional Advocate General

categorically stated that all the necessary particulars do find

mention and the only reason the release could not be effected was

because the modification application filed before the District and

Sessions Judge to modify the release order to add sub-section(1)

of Section 5 was not disposed off.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General also drew attention of

this court towards the judgment of the Division Bench dated

12.09.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 4072 of 2005 of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad about the need to mention the

particulars in the release orders of prisoners.

5. We have carefully perused the order. Contrary to what the

3 MCRC-10073-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17610

learned Additional Advocate General is contending, the order, in

fact, states that if there was sufficient reference of the concerned

case or the ST number in which the bail has been granted, even

Courts cannot insist on incorporating many other details before

release of prisoners are effected. It is mentioned in the said

judgment that from the reference of case and ST number, other

details can be ascertained by the Subordinate Courts from their

own records which normally remain available with them. If this is

so for the Courts, there is no reason why this should not be the

position for the Executive.

6. In fact, in the judgment referred to the Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court has expressed its anguish over the

disturbing facts coming to their notices through correction

applications which are being filed in the High Court on the

insistence of some Subordinate Courts to get full description of

offences, crime number, Sections of the Penal Code incorporated

in the bail orders and on that pretext refusing to accept bail bonds.

It is after expressing anguish on that score, the Court recorded that

what was required was a sufficient reference to the case and ST

number.

************

8. As long as the basic particulars are available and there is no

dispute about identifying the individual, nitpicking of Court’s

orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the

individual behind bars is a serious dereliction of duty.

************

13. In the present case, we are of the opinion that on this trivial

non-issue, the applicant/petitioner has lost his liberty for at least

28 full days. The only way we can mitigate the situation is through

award of an ad hoc monetary compensation which will be

provisional in nature. The State of Uttar Pradesh will pay a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the applicant and

submit compliance report by Friday i.e.,27.06.2025.

14. After perusal of the Enquiry Report, in case, if there is any

individual responsibility is fixed and after the determination of the

4 MCRC-10073-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17610

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

final compensation, this Court will also decide if any portion of

the compensation shall be recovered from such of those officer(s)

on whom responsibility, if any is fixed.

15. The whole episode to say the least is unfortunate. Each one of

the stakeholders in this process was aware as to what the offence

was, what the crime number was, what the Sections under which

the applicant/petitioner was charged with and what the the

punishment Section was? In spite of this, the applicant/petitioner

has been subjected to severe hardship and notwithstanding the

order of this Court dated 29.04.2025 and the release order dated

27.05.2025 which to our mind is clear as day light, the

applicant/petitioner has been released only on 24.06.2025.

16. Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to the

persons by the Constitution. It cannot be bartered away on the altar

of technicalities. We only hope that no other convict/under trial is

languishing in jail on account of similar technicalities. The

Director General (Prisons) has assured us that a thorough enquiry

on that aspect also will also be conducted by him during the course

of the next few days."

This order shall be read in conjunction with the order

dated 19.02.2026 passed in CRA No. 1782 of 2026.

Accordingly, instant M.Cr.C. is allowed to the extent indicated above

and disposed of.

<>

VSG

5 MCRC-10073-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17610