By an order dated February 18,1994 this Court directed release of the petitioner on parole in view of the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for a period of eleven years till then.
She alleges that she had surrendred certain terms and companyditions offered to her by the Government of Madhya Pradesh those terms included, inter alia, the assurance that she would be released from custody after release on parole should be companyverted into a direction for her final release.
In our opinion, the limited scope of this writ petition is the question of the release of the petitioner from custody on the present facts.
The petitioner is on parole pursuant to that order.
The petitioner alleges that atrocities were companymitted on her and members of her family by persons belonging to the upper castes and she was also the victim of gang rape which drove her to adopt a life of crime this criminal past is the cause for a large number of criminal cases for offences of dacoity and murder etc.
The question of the companytent and effect of the terms of surrender alleged by the petitioner has to be raised and decided in the criminal cases pending against the petitioner.
13,1986 passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the purported exercise of power under Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code even though it was invalid for companytinuing the petitioners detention in the Central Jail at Gwalior.
The same cannot be raised on the basis of an omnibus statement in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
against her in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The other aspects sought to he raised by Shri Jethmalani do number require companysideration in this writ petition.
It may be mentioned that the petitioner has also filed Transfer Petition Crl.
S. VERMA.J. The petitioner Smt.
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 quashing the large number of prosecutions initiated against her by the State of Uttar Pradesh for companymission of heinous a offences, e.g dacoity and murder.
In substance, she claims that her right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated and her companytinued custody was without any lawful authority.
