Read Time: 09 minutes

The Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan adjourned the matter seeking custody of Mukhtar Ansari by the State of UP against Jail Authorities, Ropar, Punjab.

While hearing the matter today Learned Solicitor General, Shri Tushar Mehta, placed on record grave apprehensions of collusion between the accused and the respondent State, hampering the entire Criminal Justice System; “Look at the medical certificate, these are the problems that we all face” said the Learned SG. It was further submitted that true facts are being suppressed in the present matter and even if it is assumed that there were some medical conditions of a serious nature, the same cannot continue perennially. Moreover, Section 269 CrPC will have to be construed to remove the responsibility from the jail authorities. 

Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Dushyant Dave, representing the jail authorities submitted that, “Mr. Mehta raises issues outside the contours of Article 32 where allegations are being made by one State against the other.” It is emphasized that invoking Article 32 by a State is completely uncalled for in the present matter, reference being drawn to the case of Siddique Kappan, arrested earlier by the State of UP. Responding to the argument of unreliable medical conditions, Learned Counsel submitted that the Jail authorities are to follow the medical reports in all cases. 

The accused in the matter is a known history sheeter with prior criminal antecedents. Petitioner-State submitted that the conduct of Respondent-authorities suggest a strong conspiracy to delay the proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge, Allahabad. It was further alleged that the sequence of events prove substantial affinity of the Respondent-State to shield the accused thereby hampering the entire judicial process; “The conduct of the Respondents is evident from the fact that neither accused Respondent no.3 has applied for default bail in FIR No. 05 of 2019 in past two years nor the Respondent nos.1 & 2 have filed the charge sheet even after two years of lodging the accused in its jail at Ropar.”

Grounds preferred by the State of UP seeking custody:

• Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 32; There is no restriction for the State authority to approach the Apex Court against infringement of Fundamental Rights under Part III; “The administration of criminal justice is bestowed upon the State on behalf of the victims of crime - primary secondary and tertiary - on the premise that a crime against a citizen is a crime against the State the petitioner has an onerous and foremost duty to ensure that its citizen uphold their trust and belief in the administration of justice under the aegis of State.”
• Petitioner has locus standi to seek transfer of case titled State of Punjab v. Mukhtar Ansari pending before Judicial Magistrate Mohali, State of Punjab to the Court of Special Judge (MP/MLA) Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, as the Petitioner is ‘party interested’ under Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance is placed on K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police, (2004) 3 SCC 767. 
• There is no specific provision for transfer of an undertrial prisoner under Code of Criminal Procedure or Jail Manual. Therefore, the petitioner, placing reliance on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 3 SCC 284 prays for an order of transfer of respondent accused to District Jail Banda, Uttar Pradesh, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 
• The present case is a fit case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with the Apex Court; medical reasons cited by the respondent accused and the notorious conduct of the Respondent authorities clearly establish the intention of evading the pending criminal trial. 
• Respondent 1 (Jail Authorities) have denied to produce Respondent 3 (the accused) in pursuance to summons issued under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by taking the advantage of contingencies mentioned under Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defeating the entire object of Chapter XXII “Attendance of persons confined or detained in prisons”, that is, to ensure speedy trial and not to stall the trial in the garb of contingencies mentioned under Section 269. 
• Transfer of Respondent 3 is imperative from District Jail Roopnagar, State of Punjab to District Jail Banda, Uttar Pradesh and the appearance securing through video conferencing would not serve the purpose in view of the fact that the attendance could not be secured at several occasions in past, as a result the Special Judge (MP/MLA) Allahabad is not able to complete the trial expeditiously. 
• Contention of Respondent 3 that he has risk to his life, is unsustainable and cannot be a ground for not handing over the custody. 

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jail Superintendent (Ropar) & Ors