1 WP.3365-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3365 OF 2010 Hitesh Pravinchandra Shah ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra . ...Respondent. ----- Mr. N.N. Gavankar i/b Mr. Arfan Sait, for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JUNE 21, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Gavankar, with Mr. Sait, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Dr. Shaikh, the learned APP for the State. 2. This Petition filed under Article 226 read with Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs: “(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue approriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing Respondent No.2 to produce the order, if any, passed by her removing the petitioner from his regular barrack and transferring him into 2 WP.3365-2010 the High Security Cell and after examining the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same; (b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction declaring the detention of the petitioner in the High Security Cell as illegal and unconstitutional; (c) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing Respondent No.2 to forthwith remove the petitioner from High Security Cell and transfer him back to his original circle and barrack; (d) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing Respondent no.2 to pay monetary compensation for the illegal detention of the petitioner in the High Security Cell; 3. When the Petition came up for hearing on 13.12.2010, the Superintendent of Prison, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, was present and she had stated before the court that on account the security threats based on anonymous letters, the petitioner was shifted to the high security cell on 26.10.2010 and that too on the basis of the report submitted by the Senior jailer on an inquiry on to the said anonymous letters. She further submitted before the court that if the petitioner, so desired, he could be 3 WP.3365-2010 shifted to the ordinary barracks but that would be entirely at the risk and consequence of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner accepted the said offer but without prejudice to his rights to continue with the Petition. Consequently, on 14.12.2010, the petitioner was taken out from the high security cell and was readmitted to the ordinary barracks. Thus, he was in the high security cell from 26.10.2010 to 13.12.2010. Mr. Sait, therefore, submitted that only prayer clause (d) could service for compensation on account of the petitioner’s confinement in the high security cell from 26.10.2010 to 13.12.2010. He also relied upon the judgment of this court (Division Bench) in the case of Sadashiv Seena Salian Vs. The State of Maharashtra [(2002) ALL MR (Cri) 525, and submitted that the shifting to high security cell for the prisoner amounted to punishment unless the petitioner was heard before he was shifted to the high security cell. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s shifting from ordinary barracks to the high security cell was also in violation of the human rights. 4. In the affidavit of the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison as well as additional affidavit, she has pointed out that on 1.10.2010 when the letter boxes were opened, there were three letters which were 4 WP.3365-2010 anonymous letters which indicated threats to the life of the petitioner. An inquiry was ordered by her letter dated 1.10.2010 and the Senior jailer submitted his confidential report on 26.10.2010. The petitioner was a life convict and while undergoing the sentence he passed his LL.B. Examination and he used to assist his inmates for writing their representations/letters etc. The affidavits particularly deny the allegations that the petitioner was shifted to the high security cell by way of punishment. It has been further pointed out that there were about 2500 prisoners in the Nashik Road Central Prison and there are some groups which are enimical to each other and taking into consideration these realities, it was deemed appropriate and for the security of the petitioner himself to shift him to the high security cell. It has been specifically denied that the petitioner was so shifted as he had filed WP No. 340 of 2010 before this court seeking directions to increase wages of the prisoners. It has also been pointed out that the high security cell has all facilities as given to the prisoners in the ordinary cell and by admitting the prisoner to the high security cell from the ordinary barrack there is no violation of human rights. 5 WP.3365-2010 5. It is also admitted by Mr. Gavankar that on completion of the total sentence of 26 years the petitioner has been released from the prison on 23.3.2011 pursuant to the order of remission passed on 14.9.2005. Though technically it was necessary to give a notice to the petitioner before he was shifted to the high security cell, in the peculiar facts of this case and that an intention to maintain secrecy on the inquiry conducted by the Senior jailer, the failure on the part of the Superintendent of the said jail to give notice to the petitioner would not by itself amount to an illegal action. She had acted on the basis of the report after due inquiry of the anonymous letters and on her, prima facie, satisfaction that there was an apprehension regarding danger to the petitioner’s security. Hence, we are not inclined to grant any compensation as prayed for by the petitioner and we must note that the some direction is required to be given to the jail administration to take due steps for shifting so as to meet the security threat perceptions and so long as such acts do not violate the human rights. 6. Hence, this Petition must fail and the same is hereby rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) 6 WP.3365-2010