Allahabad High Court
Dhruv Singh @ Kuntu Singh vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19979 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dhruv Singh @ Kuntu Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Devendra Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.P. Singh, the learned A.G.A for the state respondents.
Present petition was initially filed as Writ-C No. 37670 of 2022 when the court found that the matter relates to criminal jurisdiction, the same was registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.19979 of 2022 and has been placed before this court.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation dated 3.8.2022 pending before the respondent concerned.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the trial is going on in the District of Azamgarh whereas he has been shifted to a district jail at district Kasganj and since 2013 he has been transferred to atleast nine places and district Kasganj is about 740 kms. away therefore, a representation has been moved by wife of the petitioner to the State Government for transferring the petitioner to some nearby district jail. Admittedly, in respect of the same grievance one Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9598 of 2016 Dhruv Singh @ Kuntu Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2017 with a direction that in case the petitioner files a detailed representation before the authority concerned within two months the same may be decided by a speaking and reasoned order within two months thereafter. It appears that thereafter again the petitioner filed another writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4743 of 2018 Dhruv Singh @ Kuntu Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3others praying for identical relief as prayed in the the present case which was disposed of vide order dated 13.3.2018 which is quoted as under:-
"This petition for writ is preferred to have a writ, order or appropriate direction for the respondents to transfer the petitioner from District Jail, Bareilly to any jail near District Azamgarh.
The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. He is also facing certain trial at Azamgarh. He was transferred to Central Jail, Bareilly by the competent authority from District Jail, Azamgarh under order dated 26th November, 2015.
The grievance of the petitioner is that due to huge distance between Central Jail, Bareilly and Sessions Court, Azamgarh he has not been produced before the court, as a result of that the trial is being prolonged.
To substantiate the contention, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has shown us the order sheets commencing from 4th February, 2016 onwards. From perusal of the order sheets, it appears that petitioner was not produced on several occasions before the trial court.
Learned Additional Government Advocate after availing necessary instructions states that the petitioner was produced before the court concerned on 24.01.2018 but on 09.02.2018 due to non-availability of adequate police personnel it was not possible to produce him before the court. A request, thus was made for adjournment in the case.
It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner earlier too approached this Court for expeditious disposal of the case wherein on 6th July, 2017 a direction was given to complete the trial expeditiously as far as possible within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order dated 6th July, 2017. The direction given above was further reiterated under an order dated 26th October, 2017 in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Having considered all the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing the jail authorities to produce the petitioner before the trial court as and when called. If the respondents fail to produce the petitioner before the trial court, it shall be open for him to prefer an application in this petition for get the same revived to press the prayer to transfer the petitioner a jail nearby district Azamgarh. The respondent no.2 is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to a jail nearby district Azamgarh and he be transferred at the same place if no administrative exigency requires otherwise.
The writ petition stands disposed of."
Learned counsel for the petitioner with all fairness informs this court a contempt petition for violation of the order of this court was filed and has been dismissed. Although, he is not aware of the detailed order of the contempt petition.
In this background we find that the above quoted order clearly reflects that Criminal Writ Petition No.4743 of 2018 was disposed of by directing the jail authorities to produce the petitioner before the trial court as and when called. It was further provided that if the respondents fail to produce the petitioner before the trial court it shall be open for him to press the prayer to transfer prefer an application in this petition for get the same revived to press the prayer to transfer the petitioner in a jail nearby district Azamgarh. Respondent no.2 was also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to a jail nearby district Azamgarh and he be transferred at the same place if no administrative exigency requires otherwise.
From perusal of the present petition, we find that there is no averment in the entire petition that the petitioner is not being produced before the trial court and therefore there appears to be no violation of the aforesaid order. In case there was a violation of the aforesaid order dated 13.3.2018 it was left open for the petitioner to file an application in the aforesaid petition and clearly in the aforesaid petition itself. Therefore the present for the same relief would not be maintainable. We further find that as there was a direction to respondent no.2 in the aforesaid petition to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to a jail in the nearby district Azamgarh, the contempt petition has admittedly been dismissed by this court.
In such view of the matter, we do not find that the present petition is maintainable for the relief which had already been claimed as noted in the above quoted order.
Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Rakesh