Bombay High Court Halts Transfer of Accused to Overcrowded Central Mumbai Prison.
The Bombay High Court halted the transfer of Nagpur lawyer Satish Uke, accused in a land grab case, from Taloja Prison to the overcrowded Mumbai Central Prison. A trial court had approved his return to Mumbai Central Prison in June.
12/25/20241 min read
The overcrowding issue is compounded by security challenges, as Mumbai Central Prison houses high-risk inmates involved in terrorism, organized crime, and bomb blast cases. The Court observed the strain on resources to maintain security and stayed the special court's June order allowing the lawyer's transfer, along with its dismissal of the State's revision petition.
Justice Jadhav, on December 13, stayed the lower court's twin orders until the Criminal Revision Application is resolved. The case involves Satish Uke, accused under MCOCA for allegedly seizing 4,100 square meters of land from the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT).
Uke argued that, based on legal principles from Saeed Sohail Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, the Court should decide his place of custody. He also sought urgent reliefs, including court appearances, access to the jail library, and internet use for legal research. Justice Jadhav directed that proper procedures be followed, instructing the Registry to process the application and share Uke’s letter with the State for necessary preparations.
On December 13, the Court directed Uke to file an affidavit-in-reply to the State’s revision application within one week through the Taloja Central Jail Superintendent. Justice Jadhav also instructed the Registry to determine whether he has jurisdiction to hear Uke’s application submitted via jail authorities. He ordered the Registrar (Judicial) to refer the matter to the appropriate court for consideration. If jurisdiction lies with him, the application should be listed before him following proper procedure for clubbing.
The Registry did not comply with the Court's instructions regarding Uke's application during the hearing on December 20. As a result, the Court has adjourned the matter until January 16, 2025, by which time the Registry is expected to complete the required actions. The Court directed the Registry to review the instructions carefully and submit an appropriate report.