IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.127 of 2011 (Criminal) Smt. Rajbala Chaudhary … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated: September 30, 2011 Coram Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) Sri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the appellant, is present. Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondents. Heard. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to provide the safety and security to Sunil Rathi (son of the petitioner) who is lodged in Roshnabad Jail, District Haridwar. A further mandamus has been sought to shift Sunil Rathi from Roshnabad Jail to some other jail. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that her son Sunil Rathi belongs to District Baghpat. He has been implicated in many cases. At present, he is lodged in Roshnabad Jail in District Haridwar. It is further pleaded that after the detenue (Sunil Rathi) was acquitted by the Second Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Haridwar in criminal case no.320/2010, the authorities have become more inimical to him. The petitioner has also stated that there is apprehension of killing her son in the encounter and he is not safe and secured in Roshnabad Jail. On the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it is stated that Sunil Rathi (son of the petitioner) has a long criminal history which is annexed as Annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit. It contains list of 24 2 cases and most of the cases are relating to offences said to have been committed in District Haridwar. There are two cases of District Meerut, two cases of District Muzaffarnagar, one case of District Baghpat and two cases of Delhi. Out of the 24 cases, 6 cases relate to the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and other 6 cases relate to extortion of money. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Sunil Rathi (son of petitioner) is a convict and facing many cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the annexure filed with the supplementary affidavit showing that the petitioner has been found to have suffered a number of injuries on his person on 12.8.2011 at 9 AM. On this ground, it is prayed that he may be shifted to any other jail. As to the injuries, learned counsel for the State submitted that these are self-inflicted injuries. On behalf of the State, attention of this Court is drawn to annexure 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, which reads as under: - “That Sunil Rathi was confined in the Jail of Roshnanabad Haridwar in the year 2003 and thereafter he was shifted to the Jail of Nainital on 6.6.2003 and thereafter on 14.7.2006 he was again shifted to the Roshnanabad Jail Haridwar by the order of II A.C.J. (J.D.)/J.M. Roorkee and thereafter he was shifted to Dehradun Jail on 11.2.2007 and thereafter he was again shifted to Roshnabad Jail from Dehradun Jail on 28.6.2007 and thereafter on 24.8.2007 he was sent to Tihar Jail by the order of lower court Delhi and thereafter again on 13.10.2008, he was shifted to Roshnabad Jail and thereafter on 30.10.2008, Sunil Rathi was transferred to District Jail, Pauri Garhwal and again on shifted to Sub-Jail Haldwani was 31.10.2008 from there he has been shifted to District Jail Dehradun on 12.11.2008 and from there he was shifted to District Jail Pauri Garhwal on 7.11.2009 and from there he was shifted to District Jail Tehri Garhwal on 20.1.2010 and from there he was shifted to District Jail Nainital on 4.3.2010 and from there, he was shifted to District Jail Haridwar on 15.3.2010 and from there he was shifted to District Jail, Dehradun on 1.4.2010 and on 1.8.2010 he has been shifted to Roshnabad Jail Haridwar from Dehradun Jail and since then he is in Roshnabad Jail Haridwar” 3 Above averments in the supplementary counter affidavit disclose that the petitioner’s son Sunil Rathi has already been shifted number of times to many Jails. Learned counsel for the State contended before this Court that since most of the cases registered against the petitioner’s son are pending in the courts in District Haridwar, as such, with the criminal history as mentioned above, there will be a security problem to take the detenue from other Jails to courts in Haridwar and to take him back from there. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any justification to transfer the petitioner’s son Sunil Rathi from Haridwar Jail to any other jail at this stage. Accordingly, to that extent, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed that the safety and security of detenue is ensured. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 30.09.2011 Rdang 4