Gujarat High Court
Shweta Sanvjiv Bhatt W/O Sanjiv ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 13540 of 2024
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13540 of 2024
==========================================================
SHWETA SANVJIV BHATT W/O SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MITESH AMIN, AAG with MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR assisted by MR
KANVA ANTANI and MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] Pursuant to the notice issued by the coordinate Bench, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin appeared with learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave and learned APP Mr. K.M. Antani and Ms. Divyangana Jhala for respondent - State of Gujarat. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.
[2.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat. [3.0] By way of present petition under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the petitioner, who is wife of convict prisoner - Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt, has sought issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authority to classify the husband of the petitioner as Class-I convict prisoner as provided under Chapter XXIII of the Bombay Jail Manual and further be pleased to direct the respondents to provide all the facilities available to Class-I Convict Prisoner available under Chapter XXXI of the Bombay Jail Manual.
[3.1] Pending the present petition, the petitioner has also filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application (Direction) No.1 of 2024 in SCR.A No.13540/2024 seeking direction to respondent No.3 to provide chair, table and cot to the convict prisoner - husband of the present petitioner in the prison, considering latest medical condition as narrated in the medical certificate dated 19.12.2024 issued by the PDU Medical College and Hospital, Rajkot.
[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner is former IPS Officer and senior citizen, who was sentenced to Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in connection of Sessions Case No.148/2016 on 20.06.2019 and was directed to be lodged in Palanpur District Jail. Thereafter, he was convicted in another case being Special NDPS Case No.3/2018 on 28.03.2024 and it appears that he was lodged in Rajkot Central Jail and for transfer of jail, present petitioner had filed Special Criminal Application No.4191/2024 with multiple requests, which is pending before this Court.
[4.1] Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the husband of the petitioner surreptitiously and abruptly transferred from Palanpur District Jail to Rajkot Central Jail and the petitioner is having serious concern about the life and safety and threat to life of her husband in Rajkot Central Jail. Such an order of transfer of jail is nothing but smacks of malafide and without giving any reason, he is transferred though as per the provisions of the Jail Manual, husband of the present petitioner, who is an IPS Officer, is to be treated subject to the prisoners conditions and Bombay Jail Manual more particularly Clauses 753 to 755, considering the social status, educational qualification and habit of life. The husband Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined of the present petitioner is required to be classified under Class-I prisoner. Further, the husband of the present petitioner while serving in various positions in the State, had been instrumental in apprehending and arresting the hardcore and habitual criminals some of whom are presently lodged in Rajkot Central Jail and this poses significant and genuine threat to the life of the husband of the petitioner. [4.2] Further, she has submitted that as per Chapter XXIII of Bombay Jail Manual, the classification is compulsory. Herein, neither the learned Court nor respondent authority has classified the present petitioner as Class-I Prisoner. The husband of the petitioner is a distinguished scholar from IIT, Bombay and cleared UPSC examination with high rank and he was posted as IPS Officer and retired from the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Present petitioner is a lawyer and daughter of a renowned literate and out of the wedlock, she is having two children amongst whom, daughter is a specialized Surgeon and son is a senior Architect practicing at London. Considering the social status and the family background of the husband of the petitioner, she has requested to classify the husband of the present petitioner as Class-I Prisoner and provide facilities available to him under Clause 1074 of the Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Bombay Jail Manual. Further, it is submitted that husband of the petitioner is under various ailments and is also having a fundamental right of being Class-I Prisoner and even otherwise for safety, dignity and well-being, husband of the petitioner is in need of special requirement as mentioned in Clause 1074 of the Bombay Jail Manual, namely table, chair, bed etc. and medical certificate is also produced on record which suggests that the husband of the petitioner is having a problem and he is advised not to sit squatting and physiotherapy is also advised.
[4.3] Further, she has submitted that at present in jail, the condition of husband of petitioner is that he is having severe stress on joints, as sitting cross-legged places significant stress and strain on his hip and knee joints, worsening arthiritic injuries, joint degeneration, and reduction in cartilage density, which will further aggravate osteoarthiritic changes, reduces joint mobility and risks further harm to the husband of the petitioner. Hence, she has sought direction to provide the aforesaid equipments for which Doctor has opined and certificate of Jail authority is also produced on record. [5.0] Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined appearing with learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave and learned APP Mr. K.M. Antani and Ms. Divyangana Jhala for respondent - State of Gujarat has opposed the petition on the ground that convict prisoner is having no right to ask for classification and as the learned Sessions Judge has not classified the convict as Class-I Prisoner, question does not arise to re-classify by the authority. There is a presumption itself that if a convict prisoner is not classified as Class-I Prisoner then, he shall be treated as Class-II Prisoner. Nonetheless, husband of the petitioner was convicted in the year 2019 and till date, he has not sought for any classification. When he is transferred to Jamnagar, only then he has sought for classiciation. Initially, the husband of the petitioner had sought for transfer of jail and if he would have transferred back to Palanpur District Jail then no classification or no any need to classify is required. Hence, the petition is misconcieved.
[5.1] He has further submitted that many IPS and IAS Officers have undergone sentences even in the Gujarat State and no such classification is sought for and no practice or policy does exist in the State. Herein, status has nothing to do and nature of offence and conviction is required to be considered. The Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined husband of the petitioner is convicted in two cases, one is for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for which he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and another is under the NDPS Act wherein he is sentenced to undergo 20 years' of imprisonment. The conduct of the prisoner is also required to be considered. Not only class or status or family background of accused but the manner in which he has committed the offence is also required to be considered.
[5.2] Further, if the husband of the petitioner asks for any such equipment and the facility of chair, table, cot etc., same is not permissible on the ground of safety and this is not even possible under the provisions of the Jail Manual also to create special class and to provide special facility. Not only that, the alleged facility is sought for on the ground of illness of the husband of the petitioner. If we peruse the medical report dated 19.12.2024 which is annexed by the petitioner herself, it appears that it has been opined, "mild osteoarthiritic changes likely and advised "avoid squatting and sitting cross-legged", which is in the nature of need base advise and need base requirement. There is no any specific observation that husband of the petitioner is suffering from osteoarthiritis. Such changes are natural and age related issue and based on Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the said advise, husband of the petitioner is not entitled to ask for. Not only that, pursuant to the said advise, this Court has been pleased to pass an order on 11.07.2025 calling for an opinion from the concerned Doctor as to how the advise given in medical certificate dated 19.12.2024 is co-related with the demand of the petitioner and pursuant to the said order, Doctor has opined on 17.07.2025 and clearly stated, to avoid squatting and sitting cross-legged, which was in general and the medical opinion dated 19.12.2024 is not co-related with the demand made by the prisoner - husband of the petitioner. Further, the advise was given for temporary period. [5.3] It is further submitted that, affidavit is filed by two officers of Jail and they have clearly stated that the husband of the petitioner is not facing any such difficulty and husband of the petitioner is regularly doing his activity and they have regularly visited different barracks and places where the husband of the petitioner has an orthopedic mattress, which has been good for him at the Palanpur District Jail to deal with his age-related conditions, western toilet to avoid squatting and benches to avoid sitting cross-legged. These aids are over and above the medical attention that the convict receives in order to ensure symptom management and avoid an over exertion of routine. Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined The convict follows a rigorous three-hour exercise regimen which includes exercises of the back, core muscles, abdominis muscles, knees, crunches, leg raise, planks and brisk walks. Other traditional form of exercises included in the regimen of the convict comprises of yoga through practicing shirshasana, sarvangasana and chakrasana and these three hour exercise regimen undertaken by the convict aged 61 years and the precision with which such a rigorous regimen is practiced is unlike not only his fellow aged convicts but any individual of his age rather put a youth to shame. The convict's three hour regimen of such full body exercises and a complete work out falls only marginally short to a regimen of an athlete. [5.4] He has further submitted that the petitioner and her husband also used to file or level allegation against the authorities including the Judicial Officers and anyhow they want to protract the trial and this conduct of the petitioner was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been pleased to impose cost of Rs.3,00,000/- upon the petitioner for leveling such allegations against the authority.
[5.5] Further, an insistence of facilities that a Class-I prisoner is provided with, and certain more, simply because the husband Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined of the petitioner has not been designated as such, possibly stems not from a medical necessity but a spite of a disgruntled litigant. The medical aids commensurate to his medial status had been provisioned to him right from 2019 and which are adequate for the convict at Palanpur District Jail, however upon his transfer to Rajkot Central Jail, though better placed in terms of the ward at which he is housed, started seeming inadequate, and a demand for facilities of a Class-I Prisoner failing which all the same facilities however to be provided under the garb of medical requirement takes shape in the form of the present petition. Further, age-related slow progressing medical conditions are being made a tool to buttress the convict's intent of belittling the provisions available to the same at the prison over other convicts at his ward. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present petition. [6.0] In response to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat, learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the petitioner has submitted that the State is duty bound to follow the provisions of the Bombay Jail Manual which has not been followed till date and same is not a ground to refuse the prayer sought for by the present petitioner. The petitioner did not seek for classification in the year 2019 is not a ground Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined to refuse the request made by the petitioner. It is the duty of the concerned Court and the authority to make proper classification of prisoners under the Jail Manual. The authority is ahead of the fact that the husband of the petitioner is having problem, he is under constant treatment and even physiotherapy is also going on and in Palanpur Jail, even orthopedic bed was also provided. The cot and frames are available in the lobby of jail is not a proper ground to refuse the prayer sought for. That, merely because husband of the petitioner is a prisoner does not deprive him of his fundamental right to life with dignity.
[6.1] In support of her submissions, she has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1978) 4 SCC 494 and submitted that demand raised by the petitioner is justified. She has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar and submitted that conviction does not reduce the prisoner's status as a known person. Based on such argument she has submitted that never classification being done ahead of conviction cannot be nullified by inaction of State and in this regard, she has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh. She has also relied on the decision in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and submitted that right to live with dignity extend to those behind the bars and husband of the petitioner is also entitled for the timely medical care and if he is denied the same, it amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She has further submitted that the multi-hour physiotherapy routine of the husband of the petitioner is not a recreational indulgence, but it is a painstaking, clinican-prescribed, progressively graded programme tailored over repeated consultations to reduce pain as a part of therapeutic exercise of treatment and for the same he is doing such activity. It does not mean that he is not entitled for any such classification or facility. Herein, nature of crime has nothing to do with the request of the petitioner. Ever prisoner regardless of crime is entitled for fundamental right. She has also relied on the decisions of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 12.12.2023 in the case of Bala v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison & Ors. [WP (MD No.29195 of 2023] as well as the decision dated 30.01.2025 in the case of R. Ramalingam Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others [WP (MD) No.2024 of 2025]. Hence, she has requested to allow the present petition.
[7.0] Having heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties and perusing the pleadings, the relief sought for by the petitioner is to classify the husband of the petitioner as Class-I convict prisoner. The provision of Clauses 753, 754 and 755 of the Bombay Jail Manual are as under:
"753. For the purpose of grant of prison amenities and privileges, convicted prisoners shall be classified as Class I or Class II by the sentencing court based on social status, mode of living etc.
754. Cases of prisoners recommended for Class I require confirmation of Government, if no orders about classification are passed by sentencing court, it should be assumed that prisoners belong to Class II.
755. The Superintendent of the Jail should bring to the notice of the District Magistrate the cases of all ex-military prisoners convicted by Courts-Martial or Naval Courts. The District Magistrate after making such enquiries as may be necessary, including, if necessary, a reference to the Local Brigade Area Commander, should make the initial recommendation for classification in Class I to the State Government by whom the recommendations would be confirmed or reviewed. Prisoners not classified in Class I will be treated as Class II prisoners."
Herein, while recording conviction in two cases, neither the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur has classified the husband Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined of the present petitioner as Class-I or Class-II Prisoner. If the husband of the petitioner is classified as Class-I Prisoner based on social status or mode of living etc. then case of prisoner is recommended for confirmation of the government about the classification and if classification is not done or no order is passed by the concerned Court then it should be assumed that prisoner belong to Class II as per Clause 754 of the Bombay Jail Manual. Herein, the petitioner has sought the classification of Class-I based on his status and social background and further sought the relief to provide the facilities under Clause 1074 of the Bombay Jail Manual, which reads as under:
"1074. In the case of Class I prisoners each cell shall containas part of its equipment the following furniture:-
Bed hospital pattern (Space permitting) ... 1 Table, wooden ... 1 Chair, Do. ... 1 Book-shelf, wooden, small ... 1 Mosquito net ... 1 Basin wash-stand ... 1 Jug Water ... 1 Lamp (reading) [where no electric light is available ... 1"
[7.1] It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has simultaneously filed Criminal Misc. Application No.1/2024 in Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined SCR.A No.13540/2024 requesting for a direction to provide chair, table and cot considering ailment of under osteoarthiritis and based on the medical certificate dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Doctor.
[7.2] Now, coming back to the facts, it is undisputed and admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner is not classified by the Sessions Court. In the year 2019, he had not sought for any classification and after being transferred from Palanpur Jail, he has sought for classification. This Court is of the considered view that though the provisions under the Bombay Jail Manual is mode, is directory, which is subject to approval of the Court. [7.3] In Jail Manual, many provisions have been made keeping in mind penology and adopting a reformative approach and reformation of convict is one of the aspect. Such Class-I classification has nothing to do with reformation of convict. It is pertinent to note that considering the provisions and discriminatory provisions in various Jail Manuals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to examine all the provisions of the Jail Manuals and has been pleased to direct to the Union of India for framing of new All India Jail Manuals in the case of R.M. Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka reported in Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined (1997) 2 SCC 642 and pursuant to the said direction, after going through various provisions of the Jail Manuals, Model Prisoners Manual came into existence in the year 2003 and same was approved bythe Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2016. The said Manuals are providing safeguard to the prisoners' right and the prisoners' requirements. The said Manuals and the provisions provide better environment and prisoners' culture to ensure that prisoners enjoy their right of dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State has also recognized the right of prisoners. [7.4] It is true that merely a person is convicted would not deprive him of his fundamental right and in the case of Sunil Batra (Supra), the said aspect is elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court qua right to life and life with dignity, which is constitutional idea and human right. Considering the aforesaid directions, till date, slew of directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for better jail administration. Taking the clue and going further ahead, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 753 (3 Judges' Bench), has been pleased to direct the Union Government to revise the Prisoners' Manuals and the Rules addressed to discrimination Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined in the prisoners and noted that existing manuals and the Rules as they stood violates Articles 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India and directed to make appropriate changes to the Model Prisoners' Manual, 2016 also. This Court is of the considered view that irrespective of offence committed by the convict, merely based on his social background, if such type of classification as sought for is done, it would perpetuate the discrimination in inmates and it would lead to division of class. Under the Jail Manual, for jail administration, classification is allowed for segregation of barracks, age of convict, under-trail prisoners, ladies, gents, such classification is allowed. Keeping in mind the equal protection of law and equality under law as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution, if any classification is made by the law under Article 14, it must have (i) intelligible differentia (which means that there should be a clear distinction between those on whom the law would apply, and others), and (ii) must have a reasonable relationship between the reason for the differentia and the 'object to be sought' and (iii) must not be "manifestly arbitrary" (which means it must not be excessive or disproportionate).
[7.5] The Hon'ble Supreme Court further noted that, there was no Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined intelligible differentia to classifying prisoners on the basis of "habit", "custom", "superior mode of living" and "natural tendency to escape". Instead, classifications such as labour segregation should be based on parameters such as "conferment of entitlements such as remissions". It is also noted that caste-classification reduces the individual prisoners to "a group identity" and denies objective assessment aimed towards correction. Thus, he noted that the classification lacked a rational nexus to correctional objectives of "security and reform". On this note, it is further held that, caste- classification subverted substantive equality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further ruled that the differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of "habit", "custom", "superior mode of living" and "natural tendency to escape"
etc. is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate. These terms and phrases, according to the Court, do not serve as an intelligible differentia, that can be used to demarcate one class of prisoners from the other. Hence, considering the equality, husband of the petitioner is not entitled to ask for classification as a matter of right and hence, husband of the petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right, for any equipment provided under Clause 1074 of the Bombay Jail Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Manual.
[7.6] So far as relief sought for in Criminal Misc. Application No.1/2024 in SCR.A No.13540/2024 is concerned, pursuant to the advise given by the Jail Doctor, report was sought for vide order dated 11.07.2025 as to how advise of "avoid squatting and sitting cross-legged" is co-related with the demand made by the prisoner and in response, the Jail Doctor vide his communication dated 17.07.2025 has opined as under:
"With due respect, in reference to the above subject, iti s stated that convict No.50529 Sanjeevkumar Rajendra Bhatt, undergoing sentence at Rajkot Central Jail, was taken to PDU Hospital, Rajkot on 19/12/2024 for medical treatment. The documents related to the medical treatment dated 19/12/2024 which is written and signed by me.
After taking history of the convict / patient Sanjeevkumar Rajendra Bhatt and noted his problem of knee pain. Accordingly, we examined the patient and gave general advice and prescribed necessary medicines such as vitamins and painkillers. Additionally, we advised applying warm water compress and performing necessary exercises.
Upon reading the order dated 11/07/2025 from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in application filed by convict / patient Sanjeevkumar Rajendra Bhatt to give my opinion in regrds to opinion dated 19/12/2024 mentioning "Avoid squatting and sitting cross-legged". Furthermore, I have gone through with the details mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said application filed in Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The words written by me that is to "Avoid squatting and sitting cross-legged" was given as general advice. Thus, the medical opinion dated 19/12/2024 is not co related with the demand made by prisoner in the above- mentioned application.
The medical opinion dated 19/12/2024 was general advice and care for the patient. Further, I would like to clarify that the advice was given for a temporary period of time Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined considering the then knee pain."
In view of above specific clarification and opinion, it appears that the said advice was general advice and time being for a temporary period.
[7.7] Hence, there was no any actual need considering two affidavits filed by the in-charge Jail Officers as husband of the petitioner is doing regular exercise and this is not a case where convict has raised any grievance that he has not been provided any medical facility or physiotherapy and even otherwise, as submitted by the learned AAG, regular visit of doctor and physiotherapy is available and State is duty bound to provide medical facility considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees fundamental right of the convict prisoners. Even, in the caseof disabled convicts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed slew of directions for periodical consultation and medical facility and to submit compliance report every three months and that prisoners' premises shall be equiped with wheel chairs and friendly atmosphere and safe environment should be provided to ensure universal accessibility and in the jail also such facility is available and in the jail designated space for physiotherapy is also required to Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined be provided and said direction is also given. [7.8] Further, the State is expected to look after the fundamental right of all convicts and prisoners having any disability and even is duty bound to follow the recent directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in the case of L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in 2025 INSC 844 in case of any disability or disabled prisoner / convict also, this is not a case wherein the convict prisoner has stated or emerged from the record that, his medical medical condition is serious one and he is not getting medical treatment, care or attention from the Jail Authority. Merely based on general or future apprehension or aggravated nature of alleged hypothical condition, no case is made out to grant any relief. Even, herein, no any complaint or grievance against the respondent authorities from the convict and nothing reveals from the papers that convict is not getting or receiving any treatment in prison. In absence of any credible or authentic report or in absence of expert's opinion, no case is made out to pass any order based on hypothical future situation, in absence of any critical health condition of the convict prisoner and risk to his life or well-being. It is true that right to health and human treatment is important but whatever submission made in Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13540/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined relation to convict is age related, general and common issues and whatever advice given is preventive or palliative in nature, which clearly reveals from the opinion dated 17.07.2025 of the Doctor based on his general advice dated 19.12.2024. [8.0] In aforesaid conspectus, present petition being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. [9.0] In view of dismissal of Special Criminal Application No.13540/2024, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2024 in SCR.A No.13540/2024 also stands dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:51:36 IST 2025