Crucial To Ensure Safety Of Under-Trial: Bombay HC Stays Re-Transfer Of Accused To Over-Crowded Prison

The Bombay High Court while staying the re-transfer of an accused to over-crowded Mumbai Central Prison has asserted that it is crucial to ensure safety of the undertrials.

The Court was considering Criminal Revision Application challenging the re-transfer of the accused to the overcrowded prison by the Trial Court.

The single-bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed, "...the admitted fact in the present case is the admitted fact that that the Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) is overcrowded. This is fortified by the fact that apart from the aforesaid reason, security and safety of the person facing trial, in this case the Respondent would be of paramount consideration."

The Applicant appeared in-person while the Respondent was represented by Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten N. Venegaonkar.

It was the facts of the matter that the accused was initially lodged in Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) during his incarceration and since the jail was overcrowded, the Jail Authorities after giving intimation of transfer and more specifically in view of jail security reason transferred him from Mumbai Central Prison to Taloja Central Jail, Navi Mumbai. The transfer was effected but was later turned over on the application of  jail authorities.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that certain directions are required to be given to the Jail Authority for his physical presence before the Court on the date of every hearing and for the use of library and also orally sought directions to permit him to use internet facility.

The Applicant in-person submitted that the decision of the Court in the case of Mr. Saeed Sohail Sheikh s/o Mr. Sohail Mehmood Sheikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra should be considered by it and contended that it is well settled that the person who is facing trial in a Court is in the custody of the Court and therefore he is to be lodged at a place where the Court wants him to be lodged.

The Court at the outset observed that there is no quarrel about this proposition as argued by the Applicant, however the same cannot be at the cost of security of the person who is facing trial.

"It cannot be an absolute propositions. There is no doubt that the Court has to decide, but only after considering all facts which are relevant. That is precisely the reason which is argued by Mr. Venegaonkar. Infact, it is seen that originally when Respondent No.1 was shifted from Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) to Taloja Central Jail in Navi Mumbai, intimation to that effect was given by the Jail Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison to Respondent No.1 vide Exhibit “64A”. What is crucial is to ensure the security and safety of the person who is facing trial. Respondent No.1 in the present case infact conducting his own case. That apart, there has to be adequacy of space wherein the person is lodged. There is one of the principal reason to challenge the twin orders." the Court observed.

The Court asserted that the security and safety of the person facing trial is of paramount importnace and the present case is no exception.

"Perusal of the said report reveals that the capacity of Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) is virtually\ overcrowded beyond its sanctioned capacity by more than 5 – 6 times. To give an example and as stated in that report, in every barrack where the capacity and sanctioned strength is to house 50 inmates, as on date, the said Mumbai Central Prison houses anywhere between 200 – 220 inmates. This is confirmed by the fact that several inmates which are housed in Mumbai Central Prison have also lodged complainants before this Court with respect to inadequacy of space for movement, sleeping and for other chores. That apart, on the issue of safety and security, Mumbai Central Prison also houses inmates who are accused in bomb blast trials, terrorists undergoing trials and several MCOC undertrials belonging to various gangs as also naxalites undertrials. That puts a heavy burden on the Mumbai Central Prison with its limited resources to provide security for all undertrials. As opposed to this Respondent No.1 in the present case has addressed me that he needs this Court to give directions to the Jail Authorities to produce him on every date of hearing as also allow him to use library and internet," the Court observed.

The twin-orders were accordingly stayed.

Cause Title: Satish Mahadevarao Uke vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Click here to read/ download Order: