IMTIAZ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Imtiaz, a life convict, sent a letter to the High Court from Central Jail, Varanasi, which has been treated as a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition and notice was issued to the State of U.P.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a life convict under section 396 I.P.C. and is in jail since 2/2/1967. The petitioner was transferred from Central Jail, Bareilly to Central Jail, Varanasi on 25/10/1983 on administrative ground. The nomination roll of the petitioner for his premature release was sent to the State Government and the State Government after considering the same has rejected it on 14.2.1986 vide Annexure CA-I to the counter affidavit of Han Shanker Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi. Thereafter, the petitioner also moved a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of India for his release, which has been rejected by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.3.1986. A photostate copy of the same is annexed with the aforesaid counter affidavit as Annexure CA-2. In this order the Supreme Court of India has clearly mentioned that the case of the petitioner will be considered by the State of U.P. during the year 1987.

(3.) In the instant petition the petitioner has made two grievances. Firstly, that the petitioner is kept in jail for the last 20 years. He is a very poor man of Meerut and his family members and relations are unable to come from Meerut to Varanasi to see him, and fulfil his necessary needs in the jail due to poverty. Therefore, this mental torture of the petitioner should be removed by keeping him either in District Jail, Meerut or Central Jail, Agra or Bareilly near his home town. Secondly, State of U.P. by not granting parole to him is causing mental and social torture to the petitioner. The State of U.P., has denied the aforesaid allegations by filing two counter affidavits; one by Sri Han Shanker Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi and the other by Sri Ganga Prasad Pal, Upper Division Assistant in Home (Jails), section 3, U.P. Civil, Secretariat, Lucknow. In para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ganga Prasad Pal on behalf of the State, it is stated that the petitioner has no right to choose the prison of his choice. However, on any ground, if the convict makes an application it is always considered by the State Government. It has been also stated that the petitioner did not make any application for his transfer from Central Jail Varanasi to any other jail. In para 5 of the same counter affidavit, Mr. Pal has further stated that the petitioner has never applied for the grant of parole. Whenever he chooses to make any application for the grant of such relief that would be considered on merits of the case.