Sanjiv Bhatt Has No Right To Seek Jail Transfer: Gujarat High Court Rejects Wife's Plea Against Husband's Relocation From Palanpur Jail

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's wife seeking that her husband not be transferred or dislodged from Palanpur jail to any other jail observing that Bhatt has no absolute right to seek jail transfer. 

Bhatt was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Jamnagar Sessions Court in connection with an alleged custodial death case on 20.06.2019 and he was lodged at Jamnagar jail. Meanwhile during this time, in an NDPS trial, the Banaskantha Sessions Court on 27.03.2024 convicted the former IPS officer for the respective offences. 

During the aforesaid NDPS trial, Bhatt was detained at Palanpur jail; now his wife apprehends that the respondent authority is trying to transfer her husband from Palanpur Jail to any other jail. In view of this Bhatt's wife moved the high court.

The State meanwhile said that as per the Government Notification issued by the Home Department pertaining to classification of prisons and prisoners, mandates that the applicant to be kept at Rajkot Central Jail for the purpose of undertaking sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by Jamnagar Sessions Court. Therefore, the State argued that Bhatt has been kept at Rajkot Central Prison.

The State said that this requirement to be kept in custody in Rajkot Central Jail upon being convicted for murder and being sentenced to life is in accordance with the policy of the State Government and thus the petitioner has no right to ask jail transfer of her husband. As per the Circular issued by the Home Department as well as Classification, prisoners of Jamnagar District are also lodged at Rajkot Central Jail, the State added. 

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order said:

"this Court is of considered view that the husband of the petitioner having no absolute right to seek jail transfer. If we accept the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner, then also, prisoner should not be transferred pending appeal. Hence, in view of the above, Rule 9 would not avail any assistance to the husband of the petitioner. It is undisputed fact that today the husband of the petitioner is not under trial prisoner and not in judicial custody. The place of detention is a matter of administration's choice of detaining authority. After recording conviction, it is the duty of the State and the State has to take a call where the convicts are required to be detained. As per the policy produced on record, as the husband of the petitioner is convicted by learned District and Sessions court, Jamnagar, he is required to be detained in Rajkot Central Jail and he is lodged at Rajkot jail".

The court noted that admittedly the husband of the petitioner is convicted in two offences, one under Section 302 of IPC and another is an NDPS offence. It noted that, while conviction has been recorded with regard to murder offence, husband of the petitioner was also an under-trial prisoner in NDPS case and was thus transferred to Palanpur jail. 

After his trial concluded in the NDPS case, Bhatt was transferred back from Palanpur jail to Rajkot jail to serve his life sentence for murder conviction, the court noted.

"Hence, considering the aforesaid facts, as sentence is passed consecutive, he has preferred an appeal. Therefore, question does not arise to cause any prejudice to the husband of the petitioner...Considering the aforesaid conspectus facts, no arbitrariness or malafide appears from the State order. Further, the place of detention is an administrative choice of the State and in absence of any breach of fundamental rights of convict as well as prison authority are also duty bound to maintain the discipline and peace and to ensure the safety of prisoner, request cannot be acceded to. The management and administration of the same comes within the purview of the State and they are governed by The Prisons Act, 1894 and its Rules and Regulations framed by the respective State Governments from time time. Convict /prisoner having no absolute right to ask for to lodge or detain him in a particular place or in a jail," the court said. 

The court said that the prayer seeking that Bhatt not be transferred or dislodged from Palanpur District Jail to any other jail cannot be entertained.

"For the foregoing reasons, observations as well as relevant Policy decisions of the State Government, no case is made out to pass any direction as sought for by the petitioner," the court said.

The plea was dismissed.

Case title: SHWETA SANJIV BHATT v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/SCA NO. 4191 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order