Disposed

G. Jabali v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2023WP/30438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by advocate seeking direct interview with under-trial prisoners lodged in Central Prison, Cherlapally, alleging violation of constitutional rights due to refusal of mulakath. Court ordered authorities to consider application.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the application dated 20.10.2023 for mulakath within one week per provisions of Sections 40, 41 of Prisons Act and Rule 506.

G. Jabali Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^{BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30/Bg OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Jabali, S/o. Narsaiah,Aged 26^years, Occ^{Advocate. R/o- FlatNo'1 1, Block No.1,} MIG-ll, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad^- 500044.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Princrpal Secretary,^{Department of Home} (Prisons Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director General of Prisons and Correctional^{Services, Prisons} Department, Telangana.

¶13

The Superintendent of Jails, Central^{Prison,Cherlapally}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Cou( may be} pleased to issue a Wrii, Order, or Direction, more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{nature of} a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of^{RespondentNo.3 herein in} obstructing the Petitioner from^performing his^{professional and legal obligations} by not permitting him to meet his clients,^{who are Under Trial Prisoners lodged at} Respondent No.3 prison, for a direct interview, as^{being illegal, arbitrary,} discriminatory, and in violation of Articles^{14, '19, and 2-l of the Constitution of} lndia, and also in violation of Section 40 of the^{PrisonsAct. Consequently, direct} Respondent No.3 to^permit the Petitioner^{to havea direct interview with his clients} in person not through Jali Mulakath^(Glass and^{Phone Mulakath) as per the} application daled 20.1O.2023 in accordance with the^{law, withoutthe presence of} any other person in audible^range.

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitibn, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.3 to permtt the Petitioner to have a direct irrterview with his clients in person nol through Jail Mulakath (Glass and Phone as per ^,4ulakath) the application daled 2O.1O.2023 in accordance with the law. without the presence of any other person in audible range.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.M.RIZWAN AKHTAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3O438 of 2o23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petitioner claims to be a practicing Advocate with enrolment No.TS/295/2O i9 having more than four^years of expcriencc. It is the case of the petitioncr that his clients^viz., Shiva Reddy, Madavi Adama and Sanjay Decpak Rao arc under trial prisoners lodged in respondent No.3/prison. lt is the further case of the petitioner that he being an Advocate, in ordcr to protect the rights of the aforesaid under tnal prisoners, has made an application dated 2O. lO.2O23 to respondcnt No.3 seeking permission for grant of Mulakath. The^grievance of the petitioner is that so far respondent No.3 has not considered the said application nor he is allowing the petitioner to mcet the aforesaid under trial prisoners, which amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Articles la, 19( l)(g) and 2l of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on Sections 4O and 41 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and Rule 506 of the Telangana State Prison Rules Manual, u'hich provide for visit to civil and unconvicted prisoners as well as lacilitics to be granted to unconvicted criminal prisoners and civil prisoners in the

¶28

¶29

ffi\ .ji \

¶30

matter of interviews. Learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.3 to consider the application dated 2O.1O.2023 submitterl bv the petitioner in accordance rvith thc saici provisions ol iaw.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader for Home subrnits that respondent No.3 would consider the said application datcd 20.1O.2023 submitted by the petitioner subjecr to fullllment ol all requiremcnts by the petitioner for grant of Mulakath.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruscd thc record.

¶33

A bare reading of Sections 40 and 41 of the Prisons Act, 1894 discloses that these provisions permit visits ro civil or unconvictcd criminal prisoners at proper times and undcr proper restrictions. Furthermore, Rule 5O6(1) of the Telangana State Prison Rules-Manual mandates that unconvi<:ted criminal prisoners and civil prisoners shall be granted all reasonable facilities at proper times and under proper restrir:tions for intervieu.ing or otherwise communicating eithcr orally or in writing with their relatives, friends and legal advisers and Rule 506(2) mandates that every intervieu, between an unconvicLed prisoner and his legal adviser shall take place within sight but

¶34

..?

¶35

out of hearing of a prison official and a similar concession shall be allowed by the Superintendent in the case of an intervies. with any near relative of the unconvicted prisoner.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate ro dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No.3 to consider the application dated 2O.1O.2O23 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 40 and 4l of the Prisons Act, 1894 and Rule 506 of the Telangana State prison Rules-Manual, within a period of one (l) week from the clate of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the peririoner fulfilling all the requirements for granting Mulakath.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

//TRUE COPY/' ^ss',tI^'^lT"#tiS'trJJ/

¶41

sEcfloN 8rr,"=*

¶42

To, I The Principal Secretary,^Department of^{Home (PrisonsDepartment),} Secretariat. State of Telanoana, Hyderabad.

¶43

2 ir," Oireiior General o-f Prisrins and^{Correctional Servlces,Prisons} Department, Telangana.

¶44

3 The Superintenient of Jails,^{Central Prison,Cherlapally'} (Bv Soecial messenoerl

¶45

4 bde cc to SRI S M.RIZWAN AKHTAR,^Advocate. [oPUCI E Turo CCs to ASST. GP FOR^{HOME,High Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

A Two CD Copies. BSK R

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2811112023

-a=:
1gt grATf oA
r
loo t!r \t\ 21"&
I l)E!;P/ <<br>'4---

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.30438 of 2023

¶53

DISPOSTNG OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

G. Jabali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Jabali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandadi Pitchamma Vs The State of Telangana

S. R. Mutually Aided Co- Operative housing Society Ltd. , Vs The State of Telangana

Nampally Sai, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. B. Priyanka Vs The State of Telangana

K. Madhusudan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Palleti Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana