PHOOLAN DEVI ETC. versus STATE. OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 27-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PHOOLAN DEVI ETC. 
v. 
STATE. OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India /95<>-""A1ticles 21 and 32:--Speedy Tiial-Writ 
Petition filed seeking direction for release and quashing the criminal trial-Ab-
sence of valid order for detention-Held, entitled to be released-Long con-
tinuance of prosecution/trial by itself not enough to quash the same. 
A 
B 
c 
The petitioner surrendered before the State of Madhya Pradesh on 
certain terms and conditions for her past criminal activities. One of the 
conditions that, she was to undergo imprisonment for 8 years only. The 
State of Uttar Pradesh filed a number of cases against the petitioner for 
alleged offences of dacoity and murder. After 11 years of her surrender, D 
petitioner tiled writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution for her 
release from custody and quashing of the criminal trial pending before the 
Courts in Uttar Pradesh. 
On behalf of the petitioner, it "as contended that, she was required E 
to serve the sentence of 3 years imprisonment in the only case pending in 
. the State of Madhya Pradesh and further contended 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, and 
the custody for 11 years was sufficient to satisfy this requirement and all 
the prosecutions pending against her in Uttar Pradesh courts should be F 
quashed and her release on parole should be converted into direction for 
her final release. 
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The question whether the blame for the entire delay in G 
the prosecution trial in each o( those 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 commence-
ment of those proseeutions it cannot be said that for that reason alone the 
continuance of the prosecutions would violate the petitioners' right to H 
233 
234 
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A speedy trial. That the violation of her right to speedy trial is proved by 
these facts alone to justify quashing of all the prosecution is, therefore 
untenable. [236-H; 237-A; C·Dl 
B 
c 
D 
E 
2.1. No authority has been shown either by the State of Madhya 
Pradesh or by the State of 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 way of competent courts in any of the pending 
prosecution against the petitioner. The petitioner .is therefore entitled to 
release at present unless by any orders made hereafter by any competent 
court, she is required to be taken in custody. [237-F-GJ 
3.1. The petitioner, who is on parole by virtue of order dated 
February 18, 1994 made in this case, shall continue to remain free, 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 U.P. [238-A·B) 
3.2. The petitioner's prayer in the writ petition for quashing the 
prosecution in the State of Uttar Pradesh is rejected. [238-B) 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl} No. 
43 of 1993 etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Ram Jethmalani, Guiab Gupta, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Anil Kumar Jha, 
(NP}, Uma Nath Singh for State of M.P., A.S. Pundir for State of U.P., 
T.C. Sharma, for C.V. Sobba Rao, for Union of India, A.K. Srivastava and 
F D.S. Mehra for NCT, Delhi, M.A. Krishnamoorthy for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment/Order of the Court was delivered by : 
J.S. VERMA, J. The petitioner - Smt. Phoolan Devi was in custody 
G 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 
H 
quashing the large number of prosecutions initiated against her by the State 
PHOOLAN DEVI v. STATE [J.S. VERMA, J.] 
235 
of Uttar Pradesh for commission of heinous offences, e.g. dacoity and A 
murder. In substance, she claims that her right to speedy trial guaranteed 
under Article 21 of the Constitution has been vio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.