http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PHOOLAN DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ORS .

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1996

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      J.S. VERMA.J.      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 a  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.      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 surrendred  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  release on parole should  be converted  into a  direction for her final release.      It may  be mentioned that the petitioner has also filed Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 36 of 1992 praying for transfer of all  the criminal cases against her pending in the courts of Uttar  Pradesh to  the Special Court at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. That  transfer petition  is pending  and is  to  be heard separately.  The order disposing of this writ petition has no  bearing on  that transfer  petition.  For  the  same reason the  arguments of  Shri  Jethmalani  which  may  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

relevance in  the transfer  petition, though  urged in  this writ petition are not being considered in this writ petition and would  remain available for considering e prayer made in the petitioner’s transfer petition.      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 he 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.      We are  informed that  the State  of Uttar  Pradesh has moved an  application in each trial pending in the courts of Uttar Pradesh  seeking leave  to withdraw  the  prosecution. This aspect  based on the alleged terms of the surrender may have relevance  in those proceedings requiring consideration of the  same in  the facts of each prosecution. The question whether  the   blame   for   the   entire   delay   in   the prosecution/trial in  each of those 4 criminal cases lies on the State alone and not the petitioner is a question of fact to be  considered in  each of those cases. Merely because of the lapse  of several  years since the commencement of those prosecutions, to  cannot be  said that for that reason alone the  continuance  of  the  prosecutions  would  violate  the petitioner right  to speedy trial. Similarly, the cumulative effect of  the terms  of the  alleged surrender  have to  be examined,  on   the  same   being  duly   proved  in   those prosecutions to  decide the  merit of  the  contention  that 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 under gone 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.      Shri Ram  Jethmalani, learned  counsel  for  the  peti- tioner, strenuously urged that there is no justification for continuing the  prosecution of  the petitioner in any of the criminal cases  pending against  her in  the courts of Uttar Pradesh, since  the petitioner  has already  been in custody for a  total period  of eleven  years when  according to the terms of  surrender she was undergo imprisinment for a total period of eight years only. He submitted that to honour this commitment the  petitioner did not challenge the order dated August. 13,1986  passed by  the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the  purported exercise of power under Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure  Code even  though  it  was  invalid  for continuing the petitioner’s detention in the Central Jail at Gwalior. He  submitted that  the petitioner  was required to serve the  sentence of three years’ imprisonment in the only case  in   the  State   of  Madhya  Pradesh  which  term  of imprisonment ended  on July  25, 1985  and,  therefore,  the further custody  for a  period of  eight years satisfied the terms of  the surrender  Shri Jethmalani  submitted that the petitioner did  not challenge the validity of Madhya Pradesh Government’s order  dated August  13, 1986  because  of  the moral Justification for continuing her custody for . further period of  eight year  under the terms of surrender. Learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

counsel submitted  that now  there is  no justification  for continuing any  prosecution in Uttar Pradesh, there being no other criminal  case pending  in Madhya Pradesh against her. On this  basis  learned  counsel  contended,  that  all  the prosecutions pending  in the courts in Uttar Pradesh against the Petitioner  should be quashed; end her the petitioner is not liable for any further punishment as claimed by her. The mere fact  that the  alleged terms offer immunity from death penalty and  trial of  all cases  in Madhya Pradesh even for crimes  committed  in  Uttar  Pradesh,  indicates  that  the question of  the punishment  to be imposed on the petitioner in each  case depends on the final outcome at the trial, and the imprisonment  of eight  years mentioned  in one of these terms does  not conclude  the prosecutions. The petitioner’s contention that  the violation  of her right to speedy trial is proved  by these  facts alone  to justify quashing of all the prosecutions is, therefore, untenable.      The only  question now  is of  the relief pertaining to petitioner’s release  from  custody  at  this  juncture.  In response to  the notice of this petition, it has been stated clearly on  behalf of  the State  of Madhya Pradesh that the petitioner has  served out  the  sentence  of  three  years’ imprisonment awarded  in the only case against her in Madhya Pradesh; and  that there  is no other criminal case in which she has  been sentenced  or is  wanted. This  being  so,  no authority has  been shown  to  justify  continuance  of  her custody on  account of the commission of any crime in Madhya Pradesh or  any judgment  of any court in Madhya Pradesh. On behalf of  the State of Uttar Pradesh also, nothing has been shown to  indicate that  there is  any subsisting  order  or judgment  of   any  court   requiring  the   continuance  of petitioner in custody. In short, no authority has been shown either by  the state of Madhya Pradesh or by t e State Uttar Pradesh to justify further custody of the petitioner at this juncture. this  is, however,  subject to  the requirement of any order  made hereafter  by any  competent court in any of the  pending   prosecutions  against   the  petitioner.  The petitioner is,  therefore, entitled  to release  at prevent, unless by  any order  made hereafter  by any competent court she is  required to  be taken  in custody. The Petitioner is entitled to  the grant of relief only to this extent in this writ petition.      For  the   aforesaid  reasons   we  direct   that   the petitioner, who  is on  parole  by  virtue  of  order  dated February 18,  1994 made  in this case, shall continue remain tree, subject to the requirement of taking her in custody by virtue of  any order  made by a competent court/authority in any of  the prosecutions  pending  in  the  State  of  Uttar Pradesh or  any other  case. The prayer in the writ petition for quashing  the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh is rejected.      The writ petition is disposed of in this manner.