The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey delivered the ruling in a criminal writ petition filed by Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh, who had remained in the Central Jail, Gaya, even after securing bail in a case under Sections 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Release order issued on September 29 — but prisoner not released

Neeraj Kumar’s ordeal began after the Special Excise Judge issued a release warrant on September 29, 2025, which was promptly sent to the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Gaya. Yet, instead of being released, he continued to languish in custody. The Court meticulously reconstructed the timeline:

• The petitioner was arrested in Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 91/2025 and lodged in Central Jail, Gaya.
• He was granted bail on September 23, 2025.
• A release warrant dated September 29, 2025 was issued by the Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Gaya, directing that he be released unless required in another case.
• The jail acknowledged receipt of this release order.

Yet, the petitioner remained confined.

Instead of complying with the bail order, the Jail Superintendent relied on an earlier production warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, in connection with an unrelated theft case under Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. Significantly, the production warrant had fixed the production date as September 4, 2025—well before the release warrant arrived, and long expired by the time the petitioner’s liberty was at stake.

The High Court noted that the jail authorities had been corresponding with police officials for “vehicle with adequate force” to take the accused to Buxar, but at no point had they secured a fresh production warrant after the earlier one lapsed, even though both Section 304 and Section 305 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed such recourse.

The Bench held unequivocally:

“…once the date fixed in the production warrant expired and the order of release had already reached in the hand of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gaya Jee, he had no option but to release the petitioner.” (Para 3)

Instead, the jail kept him confined “for 18 days even after release without there being any order of a competent court,” as initially observed by the Court. Later, after accounting for a virtual production on October 4, the Bench narrowed the illegal period to five days—still an admitted constitutional violation.

IG Prisons Called to Court; Durga Puja holiday excuse rejected

On November 12, 2025, disturbed by what it termed “disturbing features” of the case, the Court summoned the IG, Prisons. Appearing online, the IG attempted to justify the delay, arguing that the non-release “occasioned due to the intervening Durga Puja holidays.”

The Bench rejected this outright, pointing out that:

• In-charge courts function even during holidays,
• The petitioner’s virtual production on October 4 occurred during Puja holidays, disproving the justification,
• The delay reflected not an isolated lapse but a habitual administrative practice.

The Court recorded that upon being confronted, the IG “immediately realised” and conceded:

“Yes, there is an illegal detention for at least five days.” (Para 6)

Court observes systemic violations across Bihar

The Bench expressed grave concern that such illegal detentions were not unique to this jail.

Justice Prasad observed: “There being an admitted position that it is a case of unauthorized detention of the petitioner from 29.09.2025 until 04.10.2025 and this practice is going on without drawing much attention of the Department, this Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a silent spectator.” (Para 7)

The Court’s warning was not limited to the Gaya jail, but directed at the State’s entire prison administration.

On Compensation: Court rejects ‘tokenism’, Cites Rudul Sah and Delhi High Court precedent

When asked to suggest a reasonable compensation amount, the IG proposed ₹10,000—a suggestion the Bench considered wholly inadequate.

The petitioner’s counsel demanded serious compensation, arguing that monetary relief must reflect the gravity of an Article 21 violation and citing:

• K.K. Pathak v. Ravi Shankar Prasad (2019), where the Patna High Court held that compensation for constitutional wrongs must be recovered from erring officials;
• Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD (2023), where the Delhi High Court awarded ₹50,000 for only half an hour of illegal detention;
• Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar (2025), where ₹1 lakh each was awarded for unauthorized police custody.

The Bench quoted extensively from Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), reaffirming that denying compensation would amount to “lip service” to fundamental rights.

After weighing these precedents, the Court held:

“Having considered the entire materials and the submissions as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be a reasonable amount which may be awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation for his unauthorized detention by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee.” (Para 11)

Crucially, the Court reiterated the principle that public money cannot bear the burden of unconstitutional action:

“The Respondent State of Bihar shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the petitioner within one month from today. Following the settled principle as discussed in the case of K.K. Pathak (supra), we direct that the amount so paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law.” (Para 12)

State-wide Reform Direction: Mandatory guidelines in two weeks

Recognising the systemic implications, the Court issued a sweeping administrative directive:

• The IG, Prisons must issue uniform guidelines to all Jail Superintendents in Bihar,
• These guidelines must ensure strict compliance with release orders and constitutional guarantees,
• They must be issued within two weeks.

“Since we have come to know that this practice is going on in other jurisdictions of the Jail Superintendents in the State, the I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services is directed to issue appropriate guidelines to all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Bihar requiring them to strictly abide by the Constitutional Mandate and order of the Court without any exception. Such guideline shall be issued within a period of two weeks from today.” (Para 12)

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

The complete judgement may be read here.

Related:

A Decade after Bisada: Why Uttar Pradesh’s attempt to drop the Akhlaq lynching case defies law and constitution

Bihar Elections: Trains for votes? The unanswered mystery of the ‘phantom’ specials from Haryana to Bihar

‘They Have a Right to Be Heard’: Supreme Court suggests Union brings back alleged deportees from Bangladesh “at least as a temporary measure”

A Terror Case Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court’s ‘heavy heart’ acquittal After 28 Years

The post Six Days Behind Bars After Bail: Patna High Court orders ₹2 lakh relief, flags state-wide pattern of illegal detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

UN body puts UK and Sweden on trial

The UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has decided that Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily held” by a concert of powers – so how might this curious situation play out?

The Working Group finds that Assange is not only entitled to his freedom of movement, but that he has a right to compensation.

This is of course a major PR victory for Assange. And whatever one thinks of the underlying story, the UN Report is a fascinating analysis of the susceptibility of national criminal processes (including on extradition) to international legal review.

So far, there have been no winners in this unique diplomatic quagmire, which has been stagnant since Assange claimed diplomatic asylum in 2012. Both Sweden and the UK have nothing to gain by becoming vicariously liable for his “arbitrary detention”, even if only in the court of international public opinion. Expect angry voices on both sides to raise the matter at this year’s UN General Assembly.

In a sense, the finding of the UN panel is binding mostly as a matter of international moral authority. Should the UK and Sweden choose to ignore the ruling, it could compromise their ability to boldly denounce other perhaps more repressive states in the future – particularly on the basis of any finding by the same UN panel. Both states have appeared over the years at the UN as champions of human rights and dissident cases, and neither has any urge to lose that cachet.

So what now? Despite the chagrin of the British and Swedish governments, there are a few ways forward.

Breaking the deadlock

Swedish officers could visit the Ecuadorian embassy to question Assange and take depositions. Maybe even an extraterritorial trial by an extraordinary Swedish court within the embassy can be arranged. Nothing is impossible in the world of diplomacy.

Assange’s lawyers have urged the charges to be dropped, although this is unlikely to happen before he is formally questioned. Either way, keeping him under what’s now deemed to be “arbitrary constructive detention” will only increase his political martyrdom.

The continuance of diplomatic asylum within the territory of a state hostile towards the accused is always very tricky. The course of events and end game scenarios tend towards the bizarre. US marines blasted hard rock music at deafening levels to flush Manuel Noriega out of the Vatican’s embassy in Panama. Peruvian politician Haya De la Torre was holed up in an embassy for at least three years while Colombia and Peru fought over the matter at the International Court of Justice.

And then there was Umaru Dikko. Dikko, a Nigerian politician who fled a huge corruption investigation at home in 1984, was kidnapped on the streets of London. He was then drugged and crated in what was described as “diplomatic baggage” for export back to Nigeria, accompanied by Israeli agents and doctors tasked with keeping him alive in the crate.It need not come to that. The panel’s conclusions could possibly inject some pragmatism into the whole affair. Assange could capitulate and walk out into the waiting hands of the UK law and be extradited, or perhaps an English court could refuse to allow his extradition based on the UN ruling. Both Assange and Ecuador could drop their claims for compensation for housing and inconveniences.

Now that the decision, however contentious, has been committed to paper and made public, all the concerned parties might finally have an impetus to find the necessary political will to reach some workable compromise to melt this excruciatingly slow-moving diplomatic glacier.

In the meantime, perhaps agents at British, Swedish and American airports should watch out for unusually large diplomatic baggage.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation

The post Julian Assange verdict: how this curious episode might be brought to an end appeared first on SabrangIndia.