Bombay High Court: A writ petition was filed before the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., to send the petitioner, Ankur Narayan Panwar, to open prison. The petitioner, while being searched after returning from furlough leave, was found possessing a mobile battery in his bag. He initially stated that his family, unaware of the prison rules, might have packed it along with the other items but at a later stage, blamed the duty staff, and alleged that he was not shown the battery when he asked for it. The Court, in Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case, after referring to the Notifications, Open Prison Rules, 1971 and the Prison Discipline contained in the manual, dismissed the petition and held that the transfer to an open prison could not be claimed as a matter of right, especially when there was a discipline issue on the part of the petitioner.
Background:
The petitioner was convicted on 8-9-2016 under Sections 302 and 326-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced to death and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years, respectively. Later, this Court commuted his death sentence under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. On 24-3-2024, he was transferred from Yerwada Central Prison to Open Prison, Paithan. He was then granted furlough leave on 4-11-2024 and returned to the prison on 3-12-2014. Upon his return, when he was being searched, a mobile battery was recovered from his bag and a show-cause notice was issued to which he first feigned ignorance saying that his family might have kept it in his bag and later switched his stance and blamed the Constable who was making the search.
Following this, an offence was registered against him under Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and he was subsequently shifted to the closed prison at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. It was contended by him that he was not given the opportunity of being heard and it seemed like he was being punished twice by putting him in closed prison again thus violating the principles of natural justice.
APP for the respondents stated the battery found in possession of the petitioner was against the rules of the prison and the possession of such a prohibited item would thereby disqualify him from being shifted to the open prison. He further said that this was not a case of double jeopardy as no separate punishment was imposed keeping in mind that his permanent transfer proposal was in process.
Analysis:
The Court referred to the Notifications, Open Prison Rules, 1971 and the Prison Discipline contained in the manual and held that these rules were made to prohibit such articles as it would facilitate the inmates to plan their escapes or help other inmates in doing so. The Court observed that the open prisons were created to give the prisoners an opportunity to meet their family and to pursue activities which would help them establish their life after release. However, such benefit was not available to everyone even though they fulfilled the eligibility criteria and could not be claimed as a matter of right.
The Court held that the continuation of the benefit would depend upon the work and good behaviour of the prisoner. The Selection Committee was to choose the eligible prisoners, and the list was then forwarded to the Additional DGP and Inspector General of Prisons and Correction Centres for their approval.
The Court noted that the petitioner once stated that his family members kept some food items and clothes which was not in his knowledge and later blamed the Constable, who undertook the search. The Court further noted that in the present Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case, the show-cause notice was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that sending him to the closed prison was merely a disciplinary action thus raising no question of double jeopardy.
The Court opined that every prisoner must follow the rules and regulations, in respect of behaviour and nobody could be allowed to bring the prohibited articles inside the prison and, thus finding a prohibited article in possession of prisoner who was about to enter the prison would definitely be liable to be dealt with as per the disciplinary rules.
The Court held that in the present Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case, no case was made out for the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and thus the petition for the transfer of the petitioner to the open prison was dismissed recording non-compliance with the rules of the prison and indiscipline as the reasons.
[Ankur Narayan Panwar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 134 of 2025, decided on 11-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.A. Jaiswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.K. Kotecha, APP.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
