Writ Of Habeas Corpus Instruction Inmate Forms: Fill & Download for Free

Yea great question:Most individuals would be charged with escape by the warden - sentenced to ten years for the escape - then they would have any time left of that ten years suspended and they would walk out of prison.Now that is assuming no one was harmed or threatened with violence on the outside because most individuals would be convicted of that.However… I think my brothers could have won an argument that false incarceration if proven over rides any crime and thus falls under the right to self defense and in theory would even allow acts of lethal force but… don’t try it because it would be a very hard one to win.My brother Rodney would likely wrap in the right to a speedy trial because if innocence actually was proven then the trial which convicted him would have to be overturned on appeal within six months and having not done that everything is justifiable and forgiven.So in the case above even a triple homicide could not be used to hold him any longer and even though he did admit to the racketeering charges he walked out a free man a few days later.Now having said all of that you may be a bit … optimistic about ‘proving you are innocent’ after you are convicted and lose your appeal.As an example my brother Gary was charged and convicted of a triple homicide (yes the same triple homicide they later charged Rodney with and also… well more on that later…)Gary was convicted and sentenced to 99 years and died after 22 of them for a triple murder that he ultimately proved he did not commit. However he wasn’t let go and died in prison anyway.How did he prove he didn’t do it? Well during his trial I was ‘sequestered’ which means that I was not allowed to hear any of the other testimony or know anything about well anything!After Gary was convicted I had no other choice but to assume that he did in fact commit the murders and it wasn’t until he died in 2012 that I was able to read his documentation and realize that he was telling the truth and that he did not in fact do it.But by doing what they did the prosecutor was able to make it look like I had knowledge that my brother was going to kill and that he did kill and so I was presented as a witness for the prosecution but the jury was shown something that well… was a work of fiction.Now here is the problem with what is shown above: well first let me show you what ‘rule 30.01 actually says:So in theory those charges could have been dismissed but I was never charged with those charges or anything else and I never appeared in any courtroom in Hennepin County which absolutely must occur in order to establish a writ of Habeas Corpus so that I could plead either guilty or not guilty and then it could have been dismissed however it wasn’t because not only was I never charged and brought before a judge there wasn’t even a judge!So here is the entire document and of course it is way too small to see: but I wanted to show that the closeups to follow are from that document:First of all the prosecutor Kevin Johnson and his so called investigator “Wags” made this document up so that it could be presented in court to fool the jury into thinking I was guilty just as my brother Gary obviously was because they both knew that my testimony was that I had no idea who killed those people but that I knew it could not have been with my gun because well… that comes too -Anyway in order to fake this document the two created it and then forged it because they had insured that I would never see it.By insuring that I was ‘sequestered’ they were able to falsify many things without fear of me declaring that they were full of shit and they were absolutely full of shit but I unfortunately didn’t learn that until after Gary died in prison.So this was filed by the Hennepin County administrator on Feb 28th at 3:48 pm presumably after my appearance before the judge and his acceptance of my plea of not guilty and then the charges were released or…Well how in the Hell could that happen? It shows that the statement of probable cause which supposedly would have been used to submit the charge so it could in fact be legally created was actually created and signed on … well Feb 27 which could not have possibly happened because Don Wagenknecht was over 80 miles away in Mankato Minnesota where I lived at the time and was not in Henn County at any time during the 27th?But in fact there it is carefully dated and signed and it looks like a real warrant for my arrest which is doubly odd because I was with Don Wagenknecht in Mankato three times on Feb 27th and the times negated any chance for him to travel the 80 miles to sign this document and then return the 80 miles to speak to me again even if he paid to fly that 80 miles!But that is not the strangest thing about that day I guess because of the three times he was with me IN MANKATO on Feb 27th I told him twice that if you believed that I was guilty of a crime of any magnitude then he should have the balls to arrest me and bring me before a judge so he could prove that probable cause existed for my arrest and according to this he had a warrant for my arrest somehow signed by him while he was talking to me 80 miles away and yet… he didn’t arrest me knowing that there was a warrant because he apparently signed the damn thing!Here is where things get extremely bizarre and cross into the twilight zone!Now please read what Wags wrote here (not on the 27th to be sure but he is dumb enough to have wrote it in a hurry the day after on the 28th when it was created and “placed” into evidence.I knew for a fact and so did he.. and of course so did Kevin Johnson that there was no possible way that my “9mm semi-automatic pistol” that I purchased at Bill’s Gun Shop when Gary was absolutely no where around me or that location… could have been the gun used to kill these particular people because they were all killed with a .380 semi-automatic AND (because it would be possible to fire a .380 out of a 9mm but in this case the Intratek was only capable of firing one .380 per revolution meaning that nine .380 shells would have had to be loaded by hand into the receiver before the trigger could be pulled to fire another shell AND since the .380 slug would be smaller than the 9mm all of them would have been clearly malformed by wobbling down the barrel AND my Intratek had been given to the police and had been tested and proven by the forensic tests that he actually references here and that forensic test did conclude that all of the slugs and casing found were in fact not fired from a 9mm but from a handgun specifically designed to fire the .380 ammunition that was used.However none of that was why I knew beyond a doubt that my gun was not used to murder those people because a witness who had military training and is considered to be an expert in firearms testified that he had seen the gun that was the murder weapon in profile at a distance but that it looked very similar and in fact most likely was a ‘Walther PPK” and well…This was what my 9mm looked like:And this is a “Walther PPK”Whether chrome finished or blued there is no possible way that a person who had never seen a firearm before much less a military trained weapons expert could ever mistake my “obscene military like toy” with a Walther PPK.But you see Kevin Johnson knew something about jury members that most outside of the courtroom do not .First: if you do not show a jury what I just showed here none of them are likely to have any idea what a Walther PPK would actually look like!I know it is a sad statement but it is true and Mr. Johnson never showed the jury what a Walther PPK looks like because he had pictures of my Intratek and he understood as I would hope any reader now does that if he allowed the expert to say he saw a Walther PPK and then he showed the jury a picture of the Walther PPK some of the members of that jury might think , “Oh that is sort of cute! I bet I could fit that right in my purse!” However if after they heard an expert war hero declare that he saw a Walther PPK and then he showed my Intratek every single member of the jury would think to themselves “Oh my GOD that is a machine gun! Only a stone cold KILLER would have something like that!”And of course not explaining that the one shown could not possibly be… well you get the idea.The sad fact is that the moment I saw that document in 2012 I not only knew Gary was innocent but I knew exactly who had killed those three people and why!Because I knew of someone connected to the three who were killed in a very specific way who did carry a gun that absolutely could be mistaken even by an expert at a distance for a Walther PPK but a closer examination would have shown that it was simply a very cheap knockoff made to look like one but that it was still a deadly firearm that fired .380 ammunition.Here it is:That is a Davis .380 but do you see how if it were seen being held in a persons hand - that the top of the Davis and the front of it does in fact look like the top and front portion of a Walther PPK?So let’s go back to my ‘conviction which was dismissed the day after I was apparently arrested and charged none of which ever happened.First of all the entire thing is BS because I explained to detective “Wags” when he was harassing me in Mankato on the same day he was somehow getting an arrest warrant approved 80 mile away when he came up with the brilliant idea of charging me with providing a handgun to a felon that there were a few problems with that… I explained that in 1990 it was in fact illegal to allow a felon who had been convicted of a ‘crime of violence’ but only if that conviction had happened within the previous ten years because in 1990 that ban would automatically expire after ten years (all of that has changed now and I am fine with that but he knew that no judge would allow me to be charged with providing a handgun to a felon unless there was in fact a conviction for a crime of violence.Feel free to go back and read what was placed there because in 1982 a simple burglary was not considered in any way to be a “crime of violence” but this is a trick that many officers use and in this situation the entire document was created relying upon the fact that Gary’s lawyer would not take the time to look closely at and actually read the document being falsified and oh yea… it was in fact falsified and that is sadly proven by the bottom it.yes folks… that is the actual document submitted to the court which declares that not only was Wags able to travel 160 miles without ever leaving Mankato on the 27th but a district court judge was also present and took the sworn testimony and order that I be arrested and confined for… bullshit.The sad fact is that in order to insure that the signature of Peter Albrecht did not resemble either Johnsons or Wags they probably had poor Mike Freeman or the poor county clerk attempt to forge the signature and whoever did was a tad bit frightened of being caught I think. IF that … well… are you kidding me?Now Gary did in fact present this document in the appeals court and the judges all agreed that it was absolutely forged and fabricated and was absolutely used to convict Gary but not for any of the reason which have been pointed out because the idiots who faked this warrant and the plea appearance that never took place and the 9mm being a .380 or the .380 being a 9mm according to the whim of the prosecutor whenever one makes the defendant look guiltier apparently had nothing to do with the appeals court agreeing it was fake.Every warrant has a return of service precisely because if the defendant is never given a copy of the document then the charge created has not been served and of course if served that defendant must be brought before a judge (a real one not one that has a rubber stamp and uses a chicken scratch as his signature) who then must determine if the charge is allowed to stand. IN theory this means that the prosecutor must ‘present the body’ which is what habeas corpus means: or there are no charges that can be said to exist and because of that no charges can possibly be a complaint in a legal sense and therefor there would be no reason to dismiss a complaint that never existed it becomes an unserved warrant which the prosecutor can simply throw away because I never saw it and the judge never asked me if I saw it.Now… back to who murdered those three people: well he is a very dangerous man but I feel very confident here that he is already aware that he has been accused of the murders .. not necessarily by me but you will understand that later;You see one of the people murdered was the sister of the fiance who was down in the living room near the couch but one thing that Johnson forgot to mention to the jury… one thing that would be pretty damn important I would think but was never brought up is that Rose was found in the living room wearing only a football jersey and that she had no underwear or anything besides that football jersey on her so… the investigators found that she actually had a bedroom in the basement of the house which was in … disarray I believe is how they put it and they theorized that When my brother Gary snuck into the house with his dastardly 9mm machine gun and he shot the two people upstairs quietly enough that the four children in bedrooms across the hallway did not even wake-up… a horrifying thought of course: that Rose did in fact wake up and came upstairs only to be murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.Um… it also turns out that Gary must have raped her first or something maybe after he shot her but no that would have caused some blood smears so he probably stopped what he was doing as he was running out of the house and raped her then shot her because the medical examiner did obtain dna in the form of semon. However because Gary had frustrated his court appointed lawyer so badly his lawyer never bothere to have the semon tested for DNA! Gary realized as the trial was ending that the DNA existed and he did demand that it be retained in case he required an appeal.And he actually said in court, “Oh my God I know who killed them!” Because he realized the same thing that I did the moment I discovered that Rose had recently had sex before she was murdered and that the weapon looked like a Walther PPK.The man who actually murdered those three people is namedWell… let me add a bit of a caveat first: everything that I know points to this man as having murdered those three people but the thing is that Kevin Johnson and Wags did not have that semon tested because they knew before Gary went to trial that the real killer was much more likely to be:Now let us start with the date of the murders:The murders occurred on December 11th 1990.Let me explain why that is important by explaining why Rose didn’t have any underwear on and why her bedroom was in ‘disarray’.Morris Uran and Rose had a passionate relationship for a long time and in fact that passion often led to arguments and then to screaming and if the two were not separated eventually to violence.Now you can not tell how dangerous someone is by how they look alone but here he was back then:Just trust me when I tell you that he was um.. more than capable of killing someone who made him angry.From 06/08/1990 to 10/30/1990 Morris was in custody and there was absolutely no fighting or arguing or punches flying into Roses face but Rose still missed Morris and actually went to visit him during that time in prison/jail.Now do you see what happened on 11/19/1990?It notes the word “abscond” which is just shortened and should actually say absconded.Now you can look that up if you want but it means that he escaped.MCF-STW means he was in Stillwater prison but you will notice that he had just been transferred to work release 19 days earlier which means that escaping wasn’t too hard because he was let out to go to work and simply walked away. But he had a reason to do that because from what i understand he wasn’t very welcome back inside Stillwater because he had someone who came to visit him smuggle in drugs so that my brother Rodney could make some money… can’t really go into that right now but at that time Rodney was one of three Shot-callers pretty much divided among racial lines who was providing recreational drugs for inmates at what one would call a pretty substantial markup for profit. You might have already guessed that the person Morris had smuggling drugs into Stillwater in order to pay Rodney for his… friendship and protection I guess would be the way to put it was none other than… Rose.Because Morris was suddenly getting to leave the prison and go to work he could meet up with Rose on his lunch breaks and well.. she had no reason to come to the prison and visit as often as she had and this caused a slight irritation.I say that because Rose wound up taking about $200.00 worth of drugs that were supposed to be brought into Stillwater and gave it to Morris to keep at work and of course there was no way for Morris to take that back into Stillwater so there was a ‘discussion’.Now… after Gary was convicted Wags and Kevin Johnson used that information to charge Rodney with conspiracy to commit murder by claiming that while Gary did kill those three people to be certain.. he did it because he was ordered to by Rodney because Rose stole about $2,000.00 in drugs because that was what it was worth inside Stillwater once Rodney received it and charged his markup.Here is the problem with that theory of course: Rose did not steal $2,000.00 because the drugs in question never got to prison and so she stole $200.00 which is less than she would have been paid had she actually brought those drugs in and they were sold.Now contrary to what the popular media would have you believe shot callers in prison are not constantly murdering everyone for everything but instead are typically accommodating and in many ways reasonable. Don’t get me wrong Rodney could be extremely violent and dangerous but he was a business man inside Stillwater and no business man murders someone over 200.00!That is simply not good business and if you are that unfair no woman who knew about that would agree to work for you.I am guessing here but I suspect that Rose was simply cut out of the loop and her punishment was that she could not earn anymore by bringing in other drugs to prison.In fact Rodney or someone like him would not be angry at Rose but instead he would be angry at Morris for not being more in control of ‘his’ girl and Morris would then have to decide to either lay down and cry like a little girl and beg forgiveness or … well… decide to take on Rodney Miller inside a world that he created and controlled. Like I said Morris was a very tough and dangerous man but… he did the only safe thing he could do and he ran like the wind!The thing to understand is that he was getting out on work release because he was almost ready to be released and by choosing not to face Rodney he knowingly traded a couple of months left behind bars for a mandatory ten year sentence when he was finally caught.I did not know Morris at all which is why Rodney asked if I could go look him up and give him a message…. because Morris didn’t know me at all which means that he was less likely to panic and think he was in some sort of danger than if Gary went to talk to him because he knew Gary and the two of them did not get along very well primarily because of the volatile relationship with Rose and her brother now shacking up with his x Debbie etc.I met him for an extremely short moment and simply informed him that I was instructed to tell him that he had over-reacted and that he was not in that kind of danger and so… now that he had taken the actions he had he should use Rodney's resources and talk to Gary about getting him away from all of the local cops looking for him. That was all and I walked away not even curious about what any of that was about but I did realize that although Morris was a very dangerous and tough hombre he was more than a bit nervous because as I walked up another person who had seen me before said “hey Troy, how is Rod doing? Don’t ever see you up this far.” and that was all it took for Morris to pull out … well a .380 Davis which was nothing more than a Walther PPK wannabe. He didn’t point it at me or brandish it in any way he simply drew it and held it in his hand and I told him I was fine with that because we had no problems and I was just there to put him at ease a bit.So… we have come along way haven’t we?Don’t worry not much farther to go here:So… this was all started to explain that one is not likely to be released even if you could prove you are not guilty right?Well Gary had a forged document and the judge Peter apparently verified that the document was fake however it was decided somehow that Gary was not convicted based on that document but on the ‘totality of evidence’ and therefor a criminal act by the investigator and the prosecutor does not remove a decision the jury had reached and so unless there was some other evidence and BAM! Gary explains that all the court had to do was run a DNA test on the semon found inside Rose and it will prove beyond any doubt that HE did not murder those three.. not Rose… and certainly not the mother of his own child!Hah! Try to ignore that would they! Cut and dry I think is the saying!Um… but no.They refused to test it because and get this: Gary did not have his lawyer test it during his trial and unless an issue is brought up during trial and ruled on by the judge it can not be looked at by an appeals court: yes it is right there and yes we agree that it is sort of unrealistic that you took the time to rape this woman after killing two other people in that house and knowing that children could wake up any moment however well your lawyer should have tested it or at least demanded that it be tested in the normal course of your trial.Now if that doesn’t piss of the reader and it should.. just wait until you hear the rest of this:The seman was tested. Both the investigator and the prosecutor knew that it belonged to Morris Uran and that Morris Uran had an explosive relationship with Rose and that he was in that house on that night and had engage with sexual intercourse with Rose in her basement bedroom because they found more of his DNA on the sheets which means that at some time during the night after partying with the three adults in the house Morris and Rose retired to her bedroom as just as was known to happen on occasion the two took to arguing and one could hazard a guess here that the argument may have very well started over her actions causing him to be forced to walk away from a certain release and the fact that it wasn’t her fault because he wasn’t in any danger and had just acted like a pussy and BAM! Morris snapped and Rose ran upstairs with nothing on but her jersey and probably threatened to call the cops which of course was more than an idle threat to Morris who would have prefered on that night to not go back to prison for a minimum of ten years and so things got out of hand and Morris went a bit too far and he killed Rose.It was likely only after that moment of passion that he realized he had a very huge problem: two adults upstairs knew he was with Rose and went to bed with her and unless he killed them both he just turned 10 years for escape into life for murder.So he did what he thought he had to do and went upstairs and eliminated that threat.Gary was charged and found guilty and the semon wasn’t presented at his trial and then Rodney was charged because of losing $200.00 worth of drugs but the police found well over $1,000.00 in drugs at the crime scene and get this… declared this was simply staged by Gary to make it look like the three were drug dealers.So logically in retaliation for losing two hundred dollars Rodney throws away 4 times that much… no.Neither Rodney or Gary had anything to do with those murders and again this is what really makes me sick: after each was charged and convicted this happened:Yep… After Gary was convicted it turns out that it was already known that Morris Uran actually murdered his supposed victims.But at least we know that Morris was really charged and brought before a judge because his bail was set at $300,000.00 oh and there is actually a signature on this one!This took place twenty years before Gary died in his prison cell.During Morris Uran’s trial Wags and Johnson had to switch things up a bit because a previous conviction had been brought up so they simply incorporated Gary into the mix and claimed that Morris and Gary together committed the murders but that wouldn’t make sense either because it is not reasonable to believe that Gary just sat around an waited while Morris and Rose spent an extended period of time downstairs… what was he doing just waiting until what?And I promise we are almost finished but I can’t leave without explaining to you what really sealed the case for me (as if all of this were not enough) after rejecting Gary’s appeal I can at least understand why a panel of judges would be forced to cover their eyes, cover their ears and cover their mouths: if they and the rest of society does not do that then the story of my family must produce a different reality than has existed for most of you.The fact is that my family has known that when leaders start declaring a war on everything it is an attempt to raise military funds without military oversight.WE have always known that when the media is instructed to use words like ‘black voters’ what they really mean is poor urban voters and when they say middle america voters they really mean poor white rural voters but you see we know that they must divide us because if we start talking we will realize that they perform because we allow them to and that our rights are not granted to us but declared.Rodney Miller could have demanded to be released from solitary confinement after six months but instead he remained in that cell for 18…. he had the commitment and the resolve to remain for an additional 365 days of isolation and torture because he knew that by doing so he would make a trade that had value to him.The sad fact is that like the judges most people who read this are going to declare that the defendant must have manipulated the evidence somehow. That it is all a trick and a lie designed to brainwash and control because if it is not a trick: if even a portion of it is true then that would mean that a 30 plus year veteran of the Hennepin County police force manipulated evidence and falsified documents out of an unjustified sense of retaliation and a reacquisition of power that he has perceived to be out of balance because well… cops have to be good and crooks have to be bad.If he or anyone starts to understand that such an assumed fact is not to be assumed then where would society go?Consider what must be accepted here:You can prove that you are innocent of the crime for which you have been convicted: show the falsification and the intentional corruption and prove that it was intentional and therefor can not fall under qualified immunity because no reasonable officer would fake testimony and even if one did there can not be any way that a esteemed investigator and a veteran prosecutor and appeals court judges and…. weil wait a second.There is no doubt that an investigator, the prosecutor and a court clerks conspired to fake a document claiming I was duly and legally charged with a crime that I in fact was never charged for and it can not be claimed that any of them acted in the dark but instead each clearly and intentionally created evidence to confuse and manipulate the jury in a criminal case.To insure that the accused would not be assumed to be innocent but instead assumed to be guilty and to insure that the defended could not present any evidence to prove innocence because in fact his innocence is already known and deemed to be not of any value.It would mean that the system built has now become corrupted to a point of harming our societal fabric instead of serving it and supporting it.It would mean that some of us will soon have to accept that many if not most need to be allowed to fail and that those who can not look around and at least see the curtain if not the man behind it should step aside and argue about a wall for however long as long as they stay out of the way.Because the only argument left at this point is that maybe Kevin Johnson had the right intentions but made some poor choices. Maybe Wags is really a good guy who one time… just one time because of frustration decided to put a person who deserved to be there behind bars because he mistakenly decided he should be the judge and the jury but as long as the reader can believe that Don Wagenknecht is at least better than the poor white trash he clears off of the streets then the reader can sleep well at night knowing that sometimes the good guys have to cheat in order to win and it is better to see one innocent man die in prison than to allow a guilty man to be…. well maybe not but something like that because if you ask someone in the group that controls everyone and everything it can they will tell you what a deep burden it is and how hard they must work compared to the losers and the whiners and the welfare people and the hungry and the lonely… Most of them can tell you right out that if you were as qualified to lead and decide for others as they are that you would know it… you would just know it.That is how they know that stopping someone from smoking something that they don’t approve of and that they did not say they were willing to allow is so very important…. not allowing that person to waste their life just sitting in the dark and laughing about things that can not possibly be funny… that to stop them from making choices for themselves it is worth every drive by shooting; every elderly person executed when the wrong house is raided, every suicide in jail cells and prisons and we really need more prisons because everyone not a cop is scum and deserves to be treated like a dog and die like one.They will perhaps not say all of these things but believe them deep inside because they have an ironclad defense really.Unless you can show them that Don Wagenknecht harmed anyone other than the scum who deserved to be harmed then so what!At least he is not a dirty criminal abusing helpless people he might have set up one worthless punk and if so big deal because Gary Miller was dangerous and so was Rodney and if they couldn’t be caught using normal channel at least we know that the better man won and we should be glad that Wagenecht did what he had to do.If you don’t agree then show me why Gary Miller, or Rodney Miller or any criminal should be protected over him I dare you!Ok… but remember you asked for it.The same investigator who was in Mankato and 80 miles away at the same time; who falsified evidence and threatened witnesses who planted evidence and lied under oath… yea that same guy is caught raping a vulnerable adult while on duty.oh I should point out that he says he did have sex with her but she wanted it and well here…That was 17 years before Gary died in his cell but of course he couldn’t appeal just because the detective he had constantly accused of being dirty and will to violate the law to get a conviction is a proven rapist and molester doesn’t mean he can’t be trusted to have told the truth on the dozens of cases he worked that sent people to prison for life.Right?

Right to Legal AidIn the case of M.H. Wadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the right to legal aid is one of the ingredients of fair procedure.Right to Speedy TrialRight to speedy trial is a fundamental right of a prisoner implicit in article 21 of the Constitution. It ensures just, fair and reasonable procedure. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less right of accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar , a shocking state of affairs in regard to the administration of justice came forward. An alarmingly large number of men and women, including children are behind prison bars for years awaiting trial in the court of law. The offences with which some of them were charged were trivial, which, even if proved would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps a year or two, and yet these unfortunate forgotten specimens of humanity were in jail, deprived of their freedom, for periods ranging from three to ten years without as much as their trial having commenced.The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its concerned and said that:What faith can these lost souls have in the judicial system which denies them a bare trial for so many years and keeps them behind the bars not because they are guilty; but because they are too poor to afford bail and the courts have no time to try them.One reason why our legal and judicial system continually denies justice to the poor by keeping them for long years in pretrial detention is our highly unsatisfactory bail system. This system of bail operates very harshly against the poor and it is only the non-poor who are able to take advantage of it by getting themselves released on bail. The poor find it difficult to furnish bail even without sureties because very often the amount of bail fixed by the courts is so unrealistically excessive that in a majority of cases the poor are unable to satisfy the police or the magistrate about their solvency for the amount of the bail and where the bail is with sureties as is usually the case, it becomes an almost impossible task for the poor to find persons sufficiently solvent to stand as sureties.In Hussainara Khatoon (II) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Court while dealing with the cases of undertrials who had suffered long incarceration held that a procedure which keeps such large number of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 21.In Mathew Areeparmtil and other v. State of Bihar and other, a large number of people were languishing in jails without trial for petty offences. Directions were issued to release those persons. Further the court ordered that the cases which involve tribal accused concerning imprisonment of more than 7 yrs. should be released on execution of a personal bond. In the case where trial has started accused should be released on bail on execution of a personal bond. In case where no proceedings at all have taken place in regard to the accused within three yrs., from the date of the lodging of FIR, the accused should be released forthwith under S.169 Cr. P.C. if there are cases in which neither charge-sheet have been submitted nor investigation has been completed during the last three years, the accused should be released forthwith subject to reinvestigation to the said cases on the fresh facts and they should not be arrested with out the permission of the magistrate.In the case of Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar, the question before the court was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution against the petitioner is to be quashed on the ground of delay in the conduct of trial. The petitioner has never suffered incarceration. His application for bail was ordered on the day he appeared before the Court and presented the same. Allowing the appeal Supreme Court gave the following directions:1. In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.2. In such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail for a period of not less than one half of the maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence, the trial court shall release the accused on bail forthwith on such conditions as it deems fit.3. If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge framed, whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and others, the court while delivering its judgment said that: In spite of such review, from the figures which we have cited above, it is clear that there is very little prospect of a speedy trial of cases under TADA in some of the States because of the absence of an adequate number of Designated Courts even in cases where a chargesheet has been filed and the cases are ready for trial.. But when the release of under-trials on bail is severely restricted as in the case of TADA by virtue of the provisions of Section 20 (8) of TADA, it becomes necessary that the trial does proceed and conclude within treasonable time. Where this is not practical, release on bail which can be taken to be embedded in the right of a speedy trial may, in some cases, be necessary to meet the requirements of Article 21.Right against Solitary Confinement, Handcuffing & Bar Fetters and Protection from TortureSolitary Confinement in a general sense means the separate confinement of a prisoner, with only occasional access of any other person, and that too only at the discretion of the jail authorities. In strict sense it means the complete isolation of a prisoner from all human society.Torture is regarded by the police/investigating agency as normal practice to check information regarding crime, the accomplice, extract confession. Police officers who are supposed to be the protector of civil liberties of citizens themselves violate precious rights of citizens. But torture of a human being by another human is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the strong over the weak. Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heel it.An arrested person or under-trial prisoner should not be subjected to handcuffing in the absence of justifying circumstances. When the accused are found to be educated persons, selflessly devoting their service to public cause, not having tendency to escape and tried and convicted for bailable offence, there is no reason for handcuffing them while taking them from prison to court.In the case of Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration, the petitioner was an under-trial prisoner in Tihar jail. He was required to be taken from jail to magistrate court and back periodically in connection with certain cases pending against him. The trial court has directed the concerned officer that while escorting him to the court and back handcuffing should not be done unless it was so warranted. But handcuffing was forced on him by the escorts. He therefore sent a telegram to one of the judges of Supreme Court on the basis of which the present habeas corpus petition has been admitted by the court.To handcuff is to hoop harshly and to punish humiliatingly. The minimum freedom of movement, under which a detainee is entitled to under Art.19, cannot be cut down by the application of handcuffs. Handcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security.There must be material, sufficiently stringent, to satisfy a reasonable mind that there is clear and present danger of escape of the prisoner who is being transported by breaking out of police control. Even when in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. The judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced has to interrogate the prisoner, as a rule, whether he has been subjected to handcuffs and other ‘iron’ treatments and if he has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith.In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court treating the letter addressed to the Chief justice as a writ petition made the following order:In almost every States there are allegations and these allegations are now increasing in frequency of deaths in custody described generally by newspapers as lock-up deaths. At present there does not appear to be any machinery to effectively deal with such allegations. Since this is an all India question concerning all States, it is desirable to issue notices to all the State Governments to find out whether they are desire to say anything in the matter. Let notices issue to all the State Government. Let notice also issue to the Law Commission of India with a request that suitable suggestions may be made in the matter. Notice be made returnable in two months from today.Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personally. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward. Fundamental rights occupy a place of pride in the Indian Constitution. Article 21 provides no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution. The expression life or personal liberty has been held to include the right to live with human dignity and thus it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries. Article 22 guarantees protection against arrest and detention in certain cases and declares that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest and he shall not be denied the right to consult and defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice.The Court, therefore, considered it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:1. The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.2. That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made, it shall also he countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and dale of arrest.3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.4. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.5. The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed; of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.7. The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor-injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory, Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well.9. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.11. A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and al the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous police, board.In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors. , the matter was contested by the State of Andhra Pradesh that no damages could be awarded in respect of sovereign functions as the establishment and maintenance of jail was part of the sovereign functions of the State and, therefore, even if there was any negligence on the part of the Officers of the State, the State would not be liable in damages as it was immune from any legal action in respect of its sovereign acts. Both the contentions were accepted by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the suit was decreed by the High Court for a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. It is this judgment which was challenged in the appeal.The other question which was argued by the learned counsel for the parties with all the vehemence at their command was the question relating to the immunity of the State from legal action in respect of their sovereign acts. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State.In the case of Ajab Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, the court said that: We do not appreciate the death of persons in judicial custody. When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible; they are responsible also to the courts under whose orders they hold such custody.The court further said that the State of Uttar Pradesh is responsible in public law for the death and must pay compensation to the petitioners for the same. They shall also pay to the petitioners the costs of the writ petitions, quantified at Rupees ten thousand.In the case of Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. and Others, the court observed that:Torture is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even graver.This clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police but also uncivilized behavior on their part. The Supreme Court issued directions that the State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to launch prosecution against all the police officers involved in this sordid affair. They further awarded compensation to the petitioners.Right to meet friends and Consult LawyerThe horizon of human rights is expanding. Prisoner’s rights have been recognized not only to protect them from physical discomfort or torture in the prison but also to save them from mental torture.In the case of Sunil Batra(II) v. Delhi Administration , the Supreme Court recognized the right of the prisoners to be visited by their friends and relatives. The court favoured their visits but subject to search and discipline and other security criteria.The court observed:Visits to prisoners by family and friends are a solace in insulation, and only a dehumanized system can derive vicarious delight in depriving prison inmates of this humane amenity.In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others, The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and liberty includes the right to live with human dignity and therefore a detainee would be entitled to have interviews with family members, friends and lawyers without severe restrictions. Court stressed upon the need of permitting the prisoners to meet their friends and relatives. The court held that the prisoner or detainee could not move about freely by going outside the jail and could not socialize with persons outside jail.The court said that:Personal liberty would include the right to socialize with members of the family and friends subject, of course, to any valid prison regulations and under Art. 14 and 21 such prison regulations must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, The court observed that whenever a public servant is arrested that matter should be intimated to the superior officers, if possible, before the arrest and in any case, immediately after the arrest. In cases of members of Armed Forces, Army, Navy or Air Force, intimation should be sent to the Officer commanding the unit to which the member belongs. It should be done immediately after the arrest is affected. Under Rule 229 of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, when a Member is arrested on a criminal charge or is detained under an executive order of the Magistrate, the executive authority must inform without delay such fact to the Speaker. As soon as any arrest, detention, conviction or release is effected intimation should invariably be sent to the Government concerned concurrently with the intimation sent to the Speaker/ Chairman of the Legislative Assembly/Council/Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha.The person who has been arrested have the right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognized by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. That Section provides:Where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who is known to him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as is practicable except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section, that he has been arrested and is being detained there.These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and require be recognizing and scrupulously protecting. For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, the court issue the following requirements:1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where is being detained.2. The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.3. An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to statisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition, departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.Right to Reasonable Wages in PrisonRemuneration, which is not less than the minimum wages, has to be paid to anyone who has been asked to provide labour or service by the state. The payment has to be equivalent to the service rendered, otherwise it would be ‘forced labour’ within the meaning of Article 23 of the Constitution. There is no difference between a prisoner serving a sentence inside the prison walls and a freeman in the society.Whenever during the imprisonment, the prisoners are made to work in the prison; they must be paid wages at the reasonable rate. The wages should not be below minimum wages.In the case of Mahammad Giasuddin v. State of A.P. , the court directed the state to take into account that the wages should be paid at a reasonable rate. It should not be below minimum wages, this factor should be taken into account while finalizing the rules for payment of wages to prisoners, as well as to give retrospective effect to wage policy.In the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Bench observed thus:We are, therefore, of the view that where a person provides labour or service to another or remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words "forced labour” under Article 23.In the case of State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, A delicate issue requiring very circumspective approach mooted before the court. Whether prisoners, who are required to do labour as part of their punishment, should necessarily be paid wages for such work at the rates prescribed under Minimum Wages law. The court has before him appeals filed by some State Governments challenging the judgments rendered by the respective High Courts which in principle upheld the contention that denial of wages at such rates would fringe on infringement of the Constitution protection against exaction of forced labour.A Division Bench in the case of Gurdev Singh v. State Himachal Pradesh, the court said that Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits ‘forced Labour’ and mandated that any contravention of such prohibition shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. The court had no doubt that paying a pittance to them is virtually paying nothing. Even if the amount paid to them were a little more than a nominal sum the resultant position would remain the same. Government of India had set up in 1980 a Committee on jail reforms under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice A.N. Mulla, a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court. The report submitted by the said Committee is known as ‘Mulla Committee Report’. It contains a lot of very valuable suggestions, among which the following are contextually apposite.All prisoners under sentence should be required to work subject to their physical and mental fitness as determined medically. Work is not to be conceived as additional punishment but as a means of furthering the rehabilitation of the prisoners, there training for work, the forming of better work habits, and of preventing idleness and disorder..... Punitive, repressive and afflictive work in any form should not be given to prisoners. Work should not become drudgery and a meaningless prison activity. Work and training programmes should be treated as important avenues of imparting useful values to inmates for their vocational and social adjustment and also for their ultimate rehabilitation in the free community.....Rates of Wages should be fair and equitable and not merely nominal or paltry. These rates should be standardized so as to achieve a broad uniformity in wage system in all the prisons in cash State and Union Territory.The court finally gave the following observations:(1) It is lawful to employ the prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to do hard labour whether he consents to do it or not.(2) It is open to the jail officials to permit other prisoners also to do any work which they choose to do provided such prisoners make a request for that purpose.(3) It is imperative that the prisoner should be paid equitable wages for the work done by them. In order to determine the quantum of equitable wages payable to prisoners the State concerned shall constitute a wage fixation body for making recommendations. We direct each State to do so as early as possible.(4) Until the State Government takes any decision on such recommendations every prisoner must be paid wages for the work done by him at such rates or revised rates as the Government concerned fixes in the light of the observations made above. For this purpose we direct all the State Governments to fix the rate of such interim wages within six weeks from today and report to this Court of compliance of this direction.(5) State concerned should make law for setting apart a portion of the wages earned by the prisoners to be paid as compensation to deserving victims of the offence the commission of which entailed the sentence of imprisonment to the prisoner, either directly or through a common fund to be created for this purpose or in any other feasible mode.Right to expressionIn State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Panduranga , the court held that the right to personal liberty includes the right to write a book and get it published and when this right was exercised by a detenu its denial without the authority of law violated Article 21.In the case of R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the petition raises a question concerning the freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country. It also raises the question as to the parameters of the right of the press to criticize and comment on the acts and conduct of public officials.The court held that the petitioners have a right to publish, what they allege to be the life-story/autobiography of Auto Shankar insofar as it appears from the public records, even without his consent or authorisation. But if they go beyond that and publish his life story, they may be invading his right to privacy and will be liable for the consequences in accordance with law. Similarly, the State or its officials cannot prevent or restrain the said publication.