The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the placement of an undertrial prisoner at a distant jail, without any security or administrative justification, constitutes arbitrary and disproportionate state action. When the trial venue and family residence are both in close proximity to alternative jail facilities, prolonged incarceration at a remote location imposes undue hardship and violates the principle of proportionality.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shoukat S/o Noor Mohd, aged approximately 40 years, is an undertrial prisoner facing trial in Sessions Case No. 36/2019 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur. The case arises from FIR No. 172/2018 registered at Police Station Baap. The petitioner has been lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer, despite the trial being conducted in Phalodi and his family residing in Jaisalmer.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody following registration of FIR No. 172/2018 on an unspecified date prior to 2019
- The trial commenced in Sessions Case No. 36/2019 and is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence
- The petitioner is not convicted; he remains an undertrial prisoner
- His mother, aged approximately 71 years, is ailing and resides in Jaisalmer
- Distance from Central Jail, Ajmer to Phalodi: approximately 302 kilometers
- Distance from Central Jail, Ajmer to Jaisalmer: approximately 480-500 kilometers
- Distance from Jodhpur to Phalodi: approximately 152 kilometers
- Distance from Jaisalmer to Phalodi: approximately 168 kilometers
- No record exists indicating security risks, escape history, or administrative necessity justifying detention in Ajmer
- Central Jail, Jodhpur, and other facilities in Jaisalmer are available and viable alternatives
Procedural History
- Date of arrest and remand: Prior to 2019 (exact date not specified in judgment)
- FIR registered: 2018 (exact date not specified)
- Trial commenced: Sessions Case No. 36/2019 (exact date not specified)
- Petition filed: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1859/2026 (filed before Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur)
- Date of hearing and judgment: 29/04/2026
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Peerane Khan, contended that his detention in Ajmer, far from both the trial court and his family, causes severe logistical, emotional, and financial hardship. He emphasized that the trial is ongoing and will continue for an extended period, making repeated long-distance travel for hearings and family visits unreasonable.
The respondents, represented by Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG, and Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA, did not contest the distances or the availability of closer facilities. No material was submitted to justify the choice of Ajmer as the place of incarceration.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to transfer him from Central Jail, Ajmer to Central Jail, Jodhpur, or any other jail in the vicinity of Phalodi or Jaisalmer, to minimize hardship and ensure access to trial proceedings and family visits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state’s decision to retain an undertrial prisoner at a distant jail, when closer alternatives are available and no security or administrative justification is provided, violates the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the continued detention in Ajmer, despite the availability of Central Jail, Jodhpur (152 km from Phalodi) and proximity of Jaisalmer (168 km from Phalodi), imposes an excessive and unnecessary burden. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh and State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar to emphasize that undertrial prisoners must not be subjected to avoidable hardship. He further contended that the absence of any record justifying the placement renders the decision arbitrary and violative of Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State did not present any evidence or justification for the detention location. No submissions were made regarding security concerns, prison capacity, or administrative necessity. The respondents’ silence on these points was treated as an admission of non-justification.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and found no material on record to support the choice of Ajmer as the place of incarceration. It noted that the distance between Ajmer and Phalodi is 302 kilometers, while Jodhpur is only 152 kilometers away and Jaisalmer is 168 kilometers from Phalodi. Both Jodhpur and Jaisalmer have adequate jail infrastructure.
"In absence of any such justification, the action of the authorities in lodging the petitioner at a distant place, ignoring nearer alternatives, suffers from arbitrariness and lack of proportionality."
The Court held that the state’s failure to provide any reason for the placement, coupled with the availability of viable alternatives, rendered the decision irrational and disproportionate. The Court emphasized that undertrial prisoners are entitled to humane conditions of detention, including reasonable access to legal representation, family, and court proceedings. The repeated transportation of the petitioner over 300 kilometers for each hearing, and the burden placed on his elderly mother to travel nearly 500 kilometers to visit him, were found to be excessive and unjustifiable.
The Court further observed that the principle of proportionality under Article 21 requires that state action be the least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate objective. Since no legitimate objective was advanced to justify the choice of Ajmer, the detention location could not be sustained.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The respondents are directed to transfer the petitioner from Central Jail, Ajmer to Central Jail, Jodhpur, or to any other jail in the vicinity of Phalodi or Jaisalmer, as may be administratively appropriate, within a period of four weeks from the date of judgment. Pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proximity Must Guide Undertrial Placement
- Practitioners must now raise proximity to trial venue and family residence as a mandatory consideration in bail and transfer applications
- Absence of security justification renders remote detention prima facie arbitrary
- Courts will scrutinize prison placement decisions under Article 21’s proportionality standard
Administrative Silence Is Not a Defense
- The state cannot rely on non-disclosure or lack of records to justify detention location
- Burden shifts to the state to produce material justifying placement away from trial venue
- Failure to do so will result in immediate transfer orders
Infrastructure Availability Is Decisive
- Availability of adequate jail facilities in nearby districts negates claims of logistical impossibility
- Courts will not accept "no nearby jail" as an excuse when alternatives exist within 150-200 km
- This precedent applies equally to women prisoners, juveniles, and undertrials with medical needs
