'Open Prison a Privilege, Not a Right’: Bombay HC Rejects Convict’s Plea in Preeti Rathi Acid Attack & Murder Case

While rejecting convict Ankur Panwar’s plea seeking transfer to an open prison in the Preeti Rathi acid attack and murder case, the Bombay High Court held that an open prison is a privilege, not a right.

A division bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh observed, “The said benefit cannot be claimed as of right... this facility is not available to everybody, though a prisoner may reach the point of eligibility.”

Panwar was convicted in 2016 by a sessions court in Mumbai for the acid attack and murder of 23-year-old Preeti Rathi. Panwar, who was her neighbour, attacked her after she rejected his marriage proposal. He had originally been sentenced to death; however, the Bombay High Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment in 2019.

In the incident at hand, he was granted furlough on November 4, 2024, and returned on December 3, 2024. However, a mobile battery was recovered from him, hidden in a Bermuda pant. Pursuant to this, show-cause notices were issued, and he was transferred to a closed prison.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary action was in violation of natural justice and the Maharashtra Open Prison Rules, 1971. He added that he wasn’t given a hearing before being removed from the open prison. He alleged double jeopardy and claimed that the mobile battery had been unintentionally placed by his family members, and that he had no knowledge of it.

On the other hand, the State argued that possession of a mobile battery is a serious prison offence. Further, the State submitted that his transfer to the closed prison was due to loss of eligibility under Rule 4(II)(d) & (n) of the Maharashtra Open Prison Rules.

While addressing eligibility, the High Court stressed that inmates must continuously meet criteria like good conduct and discipline. It further added that there is no absolute right to remain in an open prison once admitted.

Upholding the decision of the Selection Committee, the Court held: "Now, on the basis of the information supplied and the show cause notice, along with its reply that was placed before the Selection Committee, the Committee appears to have taken the decision. There is sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice, and therefore, we found that no case is made out for the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Ankur Narayan Panwar vs State of Maharashtra