PHOOLAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. Phoolan Devi was in custody since February 12, 1983 when she claims to have voluntarily surrendered in the State of Madhya Pradesh with a criminal past. She was in the Central Jail at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. In this writ petition filed in January, 1993 under Article 32 of the Constitution, she has prayed for a direction for her release from custody; and an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the large number of prosecutions initiated against her by the State of Uttar Pradesh for commission of heinous offences, e.g., dacoity and murder. In substance, she claims that her right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated and her continued custody was without any lawful authority. By, an order dated February 18, 1994, this Court directed release of the petitioner on parole in view of the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for a period of eleven years till then. THE petitioner is on parole pursuant to that order.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that atrocities were committed on her and members of her family by persons belonging to the upper castes and she was also the victim of gang rape which drove her to adopt a life of crime ; this criminal past is the cause for a large number of criminal cases for offences of dacoity and murder, etc. against her in the State of Uttar Pradesh. She alleges that she had surrendered on certain terms and conditions offered to her by the Government of Madhya Pradesh; those terms included, inter alia, the assurance that she would be released from custody after eight years ; she would be tried in the courts in Madhya Pradesh only even for the crimes alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh ; and death penalty would not be imposed in any case. On this basis, it is claimed that the custody for eleven years undergone by the petitioner is sufficient to satisfy this requirement and all the prosecutions pending against her in the courts in Uttar Pradesh should be quashed. According to the petitioner, there are about 55 criminal prosecutions against her in the courts in Uttar Pradesh alleging the commission of heinous offences like dacoity and murder by her.

(3.) In our opinion, the limited scope of this writ petition is the question of the release of the petitioner from custody on the present facts. The other aspects sought to be raised by Shri Jethmalani do not require consideration in this writ petition. The question of the content and effect of the terms of surrender alleged by the petitioner has to be raised and decided in the criminal cases pending against the petitioner. The same cannot be raised on the basis of an omnibus statement in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.