Despite opposition from Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde, the bench noted that Ansari had already served over nine years in prison. On these grounds, the court granted him a week-long interim bail.
Mumbai: On 24th May: The Bombay High Court granted interim bail to Sohail Salim Ansari, a 29-year-old convict serving a life sentence for the 2014 murder of Shiv Sena group leader Ramesh Jadhav. The court’s decision allows Ansari to appear for the state common entrance exam for a five-year integrated law course scheduled on May 30.
READ ALSO: Renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad: Bombay High Court Rejects the Plea
In October 2014, Shiv Sena leader Ramesh Jadhav, who served as “Gat Pramukh” in Malad, Mumbai, was brutally murdered. The prosecution detailed that Jadhav was attempting to defuse a communal tension sparked by a neighborhood altercation when Ansari and his accomplices attacked him with a sword and a “gupti” (a type of concealed dagger). In 2021, Ansari and three others were convicted by the Dindoshi Sessions Court and sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime.
Ansari initially sought furlough leave from prison to attend the entrance exam. However, his request was denied by prison authorities. Representing Ansari, advocate Irfan Shabbir Unwala highlighted the financial burden of Rs 17,000 per day for police escort charges, especially considering the need for at least three days’ leave.
The led the bench of Justices NR Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan to suggest that Ansari could instead apply for bail.
Right To Education
The Right to Education was interpreted as part of the Right to Life under Article 21 in the landmark cases of Mohini Jain in 1992 and Unnikrishnan in 1993. The 86th Amendment Act later solidified this by introducing Article 21A, making the Right to Education a fundamental right.
READ ALSO: Bombay High Court: Adultery Not Grounds to Deny Child Custody
In September 2021, the Supreme Court declared that handing out punishment was not the only way of delivering justice. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High Court in this case observed that “punishment given to any person should have been reformative and not prejudicial.”
It is important here to note that universally, harsher punishments have often not succeeded in stopping or reducing crime. Even when they are meant to serve as examples, as in the case of capital punishment for rapes and other rarest of rare crimes, they have largely failed as a deterrent to future crime.
Similarly, the Allahabad High Court noted that the petitioner was not convicted under any law yet and that even if he was he had a right to complete his studies the court further commented that “the petitioner is a young student, and he must have been given a chance to correct himself and choose (the) right path of life, if deviated and denial would frustrate the aim of reformative punishment.”
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Questions Bombay High Court’s Refusal to Grant Interim Relief
Despite opposition from Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde, the bench noted that Ansari had already served over nine years in prison. On these grounds, the court granted him a week-long interim bail.
The interim bail granted to Ansari sets a precedent for similar cases where convicts seek to pursue educational qualifications while serving their sentences. It reinforces the principle that access to education should not be unduly restricted, even for those convicted of serious crimes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
