Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Gujarat High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner prayed for an order directing the respondents not to transfer her husband, former IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt, from Palanpur District Jail to any other jail, the Single Judge Bench of Hasmukh D. Suthar, J, held that no convict has the absolute right to be detained in a particular place or jail. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.
Background
The petitioner’s husband, Sanjiv Bhatt, is a former Indian Police Service Officer, who had been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and had been sentenced to life imprisonment at Palanpur District Jail vide order dated 20-6-2019. While undergoing conviction under the order dated 20-6-2019, the petitioner had been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’) and had been detained in the Palampur jail itself.
The petitioner had submitted that considering the conviction under NDPS, there was a likelihood that the State authorities would dislodge the husband of the petitioner from the Palanpur District Jail to any other central jail. The petitioner had further urged that till date no untoward incident had happened against the husband of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner had submitted that she was the only available relative and if the husband of the petitioner was transferred to Rajkot Central Jail, it would be difficult for her to travel and meet her husband.
The respondent State, on the other hand, had submitted that the petitioner’s husband had been kept at Palanpur Jail only for the duration of the NDPS trial but since the trial was over, he was to be sent back to the concerned jail. The respondent had further stated that the notification issued by the Home Department pertaining to classification of prisons and prisoners mandated that the petitioner’s husband be detained in Rajkot Central Jail while undertaking the sentence of life imprisonment awarded under order dated 20-6-2019.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner’s husband had initially been lodged in Jamnagar Jail and during pendency of the NDPS case, he had been transferred to the Palanpur Jail so that he could attend the trial regularly. Once the trial had been concluded, he had been sent back to serve the sentence.
The Court opined that there was no arbitrariness or mala fide intent apparent in the State order for transfer of the petitioner’s husband. The place of detention is an administrative choice of the State. Where no fundamental rights of the convict are being breached, the request for transfer cannot be acceded to. The Court further held that the management and administration of detention comes within the purview of the State and is governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Rules and Regulations framed under it. The convict/prisoner has no absolute right to seek detention in a particular jail or jail.
Thus, the Court rejected the plea of the petitioner to not transfer her husband from the Palanpur District Jail.
[Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, R/ Spl. Crl. Appln (Direction) No. 4191 of 2024, decided on 16-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kruti M. Shah, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mitesh Amin, AAG, K.M. Antani, Divyangna Jhala, APPs
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
