Preeti Rathi Acid Attack & Murder Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Convict's Plea For Transfer To 'Open Prison' Citing Discipline Issue

Every prisoner must follow the rules and regulations especially the ones pertaining to 'behaviour' and no prisoner can be allowed to bring prohibited articles in the jail, the Bombay High Court held recently while dismissing a plea filed by Ankur Panwar, the convict in the infamous Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case.

Panwar had challenged his transfer from 'Open Prison' to a regular prison after he was found with a mobile battery. 

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh refused to accept Panwar's reasoning, who first claimed that the constable who checked his bag found the battery but did not show as he (convict) was only aware of the fact that the bag contained food items.

It also noted that the convict further claimed that since he returned from his house after spending a month with his family on parole leave on December 3, 2024, his family members, unaware of the rules, may have kept the battery in his bag along with his clothes.

"Every prisoner has to follow the rules and regulations, especially in respect of behaviour nobody can be allowed to bring the prohibited articles inside the prison and, therefore, finding a prohibited article in possession of prisoner who is about to enter the prison would definitely liable to be dealt with as per the disciplinary rules," the judges said in the order passed on June 11.

It would not be out of place to mention that Panwar was convicted under charges of murder and sentenced to death penalty by the Mumbai Sessions Court in September 2016, however, his sentenced was commuted to life by the High Court in July 2019.

The then 25-year-old Delhi resident - Panwar was convicted for murdering 23-year-old Preeti Rathi in May 2013. He had threw acid on Rathi's face at Bandra terminus soon after she arrived in Mumbai on May 2, 2013, to work as a nurse at a naval hospital in Colaba. The victim suffered grievous injuries and died a month later because of multiple organ failure.

Panwar was Rathi's neighbour in Delhi and had proposed her for marriage, however, she turned it down and this did not go down well with him and he out of jealousy of her success, attacked her.

In its order, the bench noted that the Prison Discipline – Statutory Rules under the Maharashtra Prison Manual, 1979 prohibit certain items including a mobile phone or even its parts, from being taking inside the prison.

"Certainly, these discipline rules are aimed at bringing discipline within inmates. If such articles are then allowed, it would then be the easy task for the convicts to escape or make planning for escape or even help somebody in escaping. The open prisons were created with certain objects and it gives opportunity to the inmates to meet the family members and do such activities which would then be helpful for him to establish his life after the permanent release. However, the said benefit cannot be claimed as of right," the judges observed.

Further, the bench explained how a prisoner is held eligible for becoming an inmate in the open prison and pointed out how there are also 'waiting lists' of the prisoners. 

"Therefore, this facility is not available to everybody, though may be that prisoner reaches to the point of eligibility," the bench explained, adding that a selection committee is established under the law to select such prisoners as are eligible for being confined in open prison and the said list in order of seniority for approval will have to be placed before the Additional Director General of Police (DGP) and Inspector General of Prisons and Correction Centres, who considers the list and subject to vacancies available those persons would be transferred to open prison. 

"It is also required to be borne in mind by such prisoners that in order to continue the said benefit or facility they will have to work and maintain good behaviour. It cannot be stated that once that prisoner is placed in the open prison, he cannot be asked to be put in the closed prison," the bench opined, while referring to Chapter 2 Rule 4(II) Open Prison Rules, 1971, which provides that a prisoner having any case pending in a Court and any other prisoner or category of prisoners whom the Inspector General of Prisons considers unfit for being sent to an open prison are considered as not eligible to continue the said benefit.

"There are other conditions also under which such person can be held to be not eligible. That means, the inherent conditions of behaviour will have to be adhered to continuously by such prisoner who has been transferred to open prison," the bench held. 

With these observations, the bench refused to quash and set aside the orders dated January 27, 2025 and January 10, 2025 passed by the Open Selection Committee, to shift the petitioner convict to regular prison. 

Appearance:

Advocate RA Jaiswal appeared for Petitioner. 

Additional Public Prosecutor VK Kotecha represented the State.

Case Title: Ankur Narayan Panwar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 134 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment