IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Merely because of the lapse of several years since the commencement of criminal prosecutions, it cannot be said that for that reason alone the continuance of the prosecutions would violate the petitioner s right to speedy trial.
2. Smt. Phoolan Devi, who is on parole by virtue of order dated 18.2.1994 made in her case, shall continue to remain free, subject to the requirement of taking her in custody by virtue of any order made by a competent court/authority in any of the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh or any other case.

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-The petitioner - Smt. Phoolan Devi was in custody since February 12, 1983 when she claims to have voluntarily surrendered in the State of Madhya Pradesh with a criminal past. 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 commission of heinous 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 continued custody was without any lawful authority. 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. The petitioner is on parole pursuant to that order.

2. The petitioner alleges that atrocities were committed 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. against her in the State of Uttar Pradesh. She alleges that she had surrendered on certain terms and conditions offered to her by the Government of Madhya Pradesh; those terms included, inter alia, the assurance that she would be released from custody after eight years; she would be tried in the courts in Madhya Pradesh only even for the crimes alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh; and death penalty would not be imposed in any case. On this basis it is claimed that the custody for eleven years undergone by the petitioner is sufficient to satisfy this requirement and all the prosecutions pending against her in the courts in Uttar Pradesh should be quashed. According to the petitioner there are about 55 criminal prosecutions against her in the courts in Uttar Pradesh alleging the commission of heinous offences like dacoity and murder by her.

3. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urged that there is no justification for continuing the prosecution of the petitioner in any of the criminal cases pending against her in the courts of Uttar Pradesh, since the petitioner has already been in custody for a total period of eleven years when according to the terms of surrender she was required to undergo imprisonment for a total period of eight years only. He submitted that to honour this commitment the petitioner did not challenge the order dated August 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 continuing the petitioner s detention in the Central Jail at Gwalior. He submitted that the petitioner was required to serve the sentence of three years imprisonment in the only case in the State of Madhya Pradesh which term of imprisonment ended on July 25, 1985 and, therefore, the further custody for a period of eight years satsified the terms of the surrender. Shri Jethmalani submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of Madhya Pradesh Government s order dated August 13, 1986 because of the moral justification for continuing her custody for a further period of eight years under the terms of surrender. Learned counsel submitted that now there is no justification for continuing any prosecution in Uttar Pradesh, there being no other criminal case pending in Madhya Pradesh against her. On this basis learned counsel contended, that all the prosecutions pending in the courts in Uttar Pradesh against the petitioner should be quashed; and her release on parole should be converted into a direction for her final release.

4. It may be mentio