ASHA ARUN GAWLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BROADLY this petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in exercise of power under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 directing detention of one Arun Gulabrao Gawli. However, the petition has focused on numerous aspects of serious repercussion. We have, therefore, heard the matter for a considerable period.

(2.) PREFACE to grounds of detention has described the detenu as a person with violent character, notorious gang leader and weapon wielding desperado. It is averred that even while in Jail, he was operating and was giving directions, indulging in criminal activities like extortion, terrorism, master minding murders, etc. through members of the gang. He has been almost running a parallel administration attempting to nullify the very existence of law enforcing Authorities. While in Jail, he has been indulging in contract killing of important people.

(3.) SHRI Narvane, Inspector General of Prisons in his affidavit, gave particulars of the period when the detenu was kept in various Jails. SHRI Narvane has stated that the under-trial, detenu and convict prisoners lodged in different prisons are in the custody of the Jail Superintendents. They are responsible for the safety of the prisoners, maintenance of prisons and enforcement of discipline amongst the prisoners. In para 4 of the affidavit, SHRI Narvane has stated that detenu was entitled to have interviews as per sub-rule 14 of Maharashtra Prisons (Facilities to Prisoners) Rules, 1962. As per the above Rules, such interviews can take place within the site, but out of hearing of the prison official. It was, therefore, not possible for the prison staff to know what transpired during such interviews. SHRI Narvane has further averred that since 1994 in order to prevent the possible criminal conspiracies within the prison, the members of the gang of prisoners were dispersed and sent to different prisons in the State. The explanation of SHRI Narvane is wholly erroneous. Clause 11 of the relevant Rule provides that every interview shall take place in the presence and hearing of the Jailor specially appointed by the Superintendent for the purpose and it shall be the duty of such Jailor to see that no irregularity occurs. Clause 14 provides subject to the provisions of Rule 11, the Superintendent may permit interview with near relatives beyond hearing. Having regard to these Rules, the interviews with a person other than Lawyer or near relatives would only be within the hearing of the Jail Authorities. And they have to exercise necessary vigil at such time. As such, passing of information to the outsider without knowledge or connivance of the Jail official was just impossible.