Bombay High Court stays transfer of accused to overcrowded Central Mumbai Prison

The Bombay High Court recently halted the transfer of Nagpur-based lawyer Satish Mahadevrao Uke, who is facing criminal charges in a land grab case, from Taloja Prison to the overcrowded Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) [State of Maharashtra v Satish Uke]..The accused lawyer was initially lodged at the Mumbai Central Prison, but later transferred to Taloja jail. He then sought a transfer back to Mumbai Central Prison, which was allowed by a trial court in June this year. The State challenged this before the High Court, where it highlighted security concerns at the Mumbai Central Prison. Notably a report submitted to the Court by prison authorities revealed disturbing overcrowding conditions at the Central jail, where barracks designed for 50 inmates are currently housing between 200 to 220 inmates.A single Bench of Justice Milind Jadhav took note of the alarming situation highlighted in a report dated December 12, 2024, prepared by the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison. “In every barrack where the capacity and sanctioned strength is to house 50 inmates, as on date, the said Mumbai Central Prison houses anywhere between 200–220 inmates. This is confirmed by the fact that several inmates housed in Mumbai Central Prison have also lodged complaints before this Court regarding the inadequacy of space for movement, sleeping, and other chores," the Court observed, while referring to the prison authority's report. .The overcrowding issue was exacerbated by significant security concerns. Mumbai Central Prison houses individuals accused of serious crimes, including bomb blast trials, terrorism-related offenses, and organized crime. “This puts a heavy burden on the prison, with limited resources to ensure security for all undertrials," the Court noted.It proceeded to stay the special court's June order on transferring the accused lawyer to the Central Mumbai Prison, as well as the special court's dismissal of a revision petition by the State in the matter. "The twin orders passed below ... shall stand stayed until the present Criminal Revision Application is decided by the Court," Justice Jadhav ordered on December 13. .The case before the Court concerns Satish Uke, who, along with his associates, is accused under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with an land grabbing case. Uke is accused of illegally seizing 4,100 square meters of land from the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT). Uke was initially lodged at Mumbai Central Prison but was transferred to Taloja Jail in January 2023 due to overcrowding. Uke sought a return to Arthur Road Jail and was granted permission by a Special Court on June 15, 2024. However, the State challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court..The State argued that Uke's transfer to the overcrowded Mumbai Central Prison could pose significant security risks. Uke countered that according to legal principles laid down in the case of Saeed Sohail Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, the decision regarding his place of custody should be left to the Court's discretion.In addition to the transfer issue, Uke also filed an application seeking urgent reliefs regarding his physical presence in court for hearings, access to the jail library, and the ability to use the internet for legal research. The application was submitted through jail authorities, but Justice Jadhav noted that such requests must follow proper procedure. He instructed the Registry to process the application and ensure that Uke’s letter was shared with the State, so they could prepare any necessary legal citations for the next hearing..The Court on December 13 also instructed Uke to file an affidavit-in-reply to the State’s revision application within one week, through the Superintendent of Taloja Central Jail.Justice Jadhav further asked the Registry to examine if he can hear Uke's application, since it was sent through a jail authority. "Whether I will have the jurisdiction to hear, consider and pass orders in the Application received through jail is not clear ... Hence, concerned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ... place the same before the appropriate Court. If this Court is required to hear this Application, then concerned Registrar (Judicial) shall take appropriate steps to list the same before me after following the due procedure for clubbing," the Court had ordered. However, this direction regarding the listing of Uke's application was not complied with by the Registry when the matter was heard next on December 20. Therefore, the Court has deferred further hearing until January 16, 2025, by when the Registry is expected to finish complying with the Court's earlier instructions on this aspect. "The Registry is directed to read the directions carefully and make an appropriate report to the Court," the Court ordered..Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, along with Additional Public Prosecutor Sangita E Phad appeared for the applicant-StateAdvocate Manisha Jagtap along with advocate Swara Vichare appeared for the Enforcement Directorate..[Read Orders]