The Bombay High Court on Wednesday strongly criticized officials of Taloja Central Prison for failing to comply with its earlier order granting interim bail to Elgar Parishad accused Ramesh Gaichor. The court noted that despite its clear directive, Gaichor was not released on September 9 as ordered. Expressing displeasure over what it termed an act of non-compliance and administrative high-handedness, the bench directed the jail superintendent to submit an unconditional written apology to the court by Thursday.
Gaichor’s lawyers, Mihir Desai and Sanskruti Yagnik, approached the High Court urgently, pointing out that the delay in his release had prevented him from meeting his ailing father. They requested that the dates of his interim bail be revised to September 16–19, instead of the earlier September 9–11 window, to ensure that Gaichor could still visit his father.
The temporary bail was originally granted on August 26 by a bench led by Justice AS Gadkari, who permitted Gaichor to step out of jail between 9 am on September 9 and 6 pm on September 11. The bail order required him to execute a personal bond of ₹25,000 and deposit an additional cash security of the same amount with the prison authorities. The High Court had clearly directed that upon fulfilling these conditions, Taloja prison officials were duty-bound to release him by 9 am on September 9.
However, due to court holidays and Ganesh Chaturthi-related administrative closures, the order was only formally available on the evening of September 4. Gaichor managed to deposit the ₹25,000 cash security on September 9 itself, but the prison authorities refused to release him, insisting that a separate release bond or warrant be procured from the sessions court.
The High Court bench of Justices AS Gadkari and RR Bhonsale took serious exception to this, questioning why prison officials imposed additional requirements when the High Court itself had passed a specific release order. The judges observed that such insistence amounted to unnecessary procedural hurdles and was indicative of the superintendent’s disregard for judicial authority.
Although Chief Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh explained that this procedure was generally followed in Maharashtra prisons and argued it was a case of misunderstanding, the court was not satisfied. Deshmukh assured the bench that she would convey the matter to senior prison authorities and confirmed that the superintendent would issue a written apology by September 11. The court accepted this assurance while making clear that such lapses could not be tolerated in the future.
