📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Augustus Binu/ www.dreamsparrow.net/ facebook
Crime
Kerala High Court finds 341 bail‑granted inmates still in custody, cites e‑Prisons portal flaws
✍️ Bar and Bench
🗓 03 Sep 2026, 02:34 AM
👁 3
The Kerala High Court highlighted that 341 prisoners who were granted bail were not released within the statutory seven‑day period, pointing to shortcomings in the state’s e‑Prisons management system.
The Kerala High Court observed that 341 individuals who had been granted bail by lower courts remained in prison beyond the seven‑day deadline prescribed by law. The court’s order, delivered after a petition highlighting the delay, underscores a breach of the statutory timeline for bail release.
The bench attributed the lapse to deficiencies in the e‑Prisons portal, an online system meant to track bail applications, approvals and subsequent releases. According to the court, the portal failed to generate timely alerts and did not ensure that prison officials acted on bail orders within the required period.
In response, the court directed the state prison department to conduct an immediate audit of the e‑Prisons infrastructure, rectify identified glitches, and submit a compliance report within four weeks. It also instructed prison officials to prioritize the release of the pending bail‑granted inmates.
Prison authorities have acknowledged the shortcomings and assured cooperation with the court’s directives. They indicated that technical upgrades and staff training are underway to prevent recurrence of such delays.
Legal experts note that the judgment reinforces the importance of digital governance in the criminal justice system and may prompt other states to review their own e‑Prisons mechanisms.
The bench attributed the lapse to deficiencies in the e‑Prisons portal, an online system meant to track bail applications, approvals and subsequent releases. According to the court, the portal failed to generate timely alerts and did not ensure that prison officials acted on bail orders within the required period.
In response, the court directed the state prison department to conduct an immediate audit of the e‑Prisons infrastructure, rectify identified glitches, and submit a compliance report within four weeks. It also instructed prison officials to prioritize the release of the pending bail‑granted inmates.
Prison authorities have acknowledged the shortcomings and assured cooperation with the court’s directives. They indicated that technical upgrades and staff training are underway to prevent recurrence of such delays.
Legal experts note that the judgment reinforces the importance of digital governance in the criminal justice system and may prompt other states to review their own e‑Prisons mechanisms.