Introduction:
In Anand Singh v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4405/2025), the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that an undertrial prisoner does not lose his civil or property rights merely because he is in judicial custody. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that an undertrial or pre-conviction prisoner continues to enjoy the constitutional right to own, manage and alienate his property. The Court ruled that such a person can validly execute a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) or Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from jail, enabling an authorised attorney to lawfully sell the property, provided all statutory safeguards relating to attestation and registration are followed.
The petition arose from an order of the Special Judge refusing permission to an undertrial prisoner to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother. The petitioner sought directions to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur, to permit execution, attestation and registration of the document within the jail premises. The trial court had rejected the application on the assumption that the property proposed to be sold might have been acquired from the proceeds of crime.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, contending that he was only an undertrial prisoner and had not been convicted of any offence. He argued that the refusal to permit execution of the Power of Attorney prevented him from dealing with his lawfully owned property despite facing severe financial hardship. The case required the High Court to examine whether incarceration during trial curtails a person’s constitutional and statutory rights over his property.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner submitted that he had been arrested in connection with a criminal case and remained in judicial custody as an undertrial. Since he could not personally appear before the Sub-Registrar’s office, he sought permission to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother, who would thereafter complete the sale of a portion of the jointly owned property.
It was argued that the petitioner’s financial condition had become extremely difficult, making the sale of the property necessary. The petitioner emphasised that the property was jointly owned and there was no legal prohibition against its transfer.
The petitioner further contended that the Special Judge had rejected his application merely on suspicion that the property might have been purchased from the proceeds of crime. According to the petitioner, neither the investigating agency had collected any evidence supporting such an allegation while filing the charge sheet nor had any such material been produced before the trial court during the course of the criminal proceedings.
The respondent opposed the petition by submitting that the criminal trial had almost concluded and there remained a possibility that the property in question had been purchased using proceeds of crime. It was argued that permitting execution of the Power of Attorney at that stage could adversely affect the proceedings if the allegations regarding the property’s source were ultimately established.
However, the prosecution was unable to produce any documentary or other evidence demonstrating that the disputed property had in fact been acquired through illegal means or that it had been attached under any law.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the petition, the Rajasthan High Court held that the Special Judge had committed a serious error in refusing permission solely on the basis of assumptions and conjectures. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that no material had been placed before the Court to establish that the property was purchased from the proceeds of crime.
The Court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence. Unless the investigating agency produces credible material establishing that the property is tainted or has been legally attached, courts cannot deprive an undertrial prisoner of his right to deal with his property merely because criminal proceedings are pending.
The Court emphasised that an undertrial prisoner remains legally innocent until proven guilty. Mere registration of an FIR or continued incarceration during trial does not extinguish civil rights or amount to “civil death.”
Referring to Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution, the Court held that every individual, including a prisoner, retains the constitutional right to life, dignity and property. The right to own, possess and transfer property cannot be denied merely because a person is facing criminal prosecution.
The Bench observed that preventing an undertrial prisoner from selling his property without any legal basis would amount to an unjustified restriction on his constitutional rights. Such denial would directly violate Article 21, which protects personal liberty, and Article 300A, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.
The Court further explained that Indian law itself provides a complete statutory mechanism enabling prisoners to execute legal documents while remaining in custody. It referred to Section 38(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which authorises the registering authority to depute an officer to the place where a person is confined for the purpose of registering documents.
The Court also relied upon Rule 202 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 2022, applicable to undertrial prisoners, and Rule 526 relating to convicted prisoners. These provisions specifically recognise that prisoners may execute powers of attorney and other legal documents inside prison after proper verification by the Jail Superintendent or the competent authority.
Justice Dhand noted that the procedure adequately safeguards against fraud because the prison authorities verify the prisoner’s identity through jail records, Aadhaar and witnesses before attesting the document. Once duly attested and registered, the attorney lawfully acquires authority to execute transactions on behalf of the prisoner.
The Court clarified that a duly executed and registered General or Special Power of Attorney legally authorises the attorney holder to execute a sale deed on behalf of the prisoner-principal. Therefore, there existed no legal impediment preventing the petitioner from authorising his brother to sell the property.
The Bench categorically held that an undertrial prisoner does not forfeit his right to alienate property. The only limitations arise where the property has been lawfully attached, confiscated or otherwise restrained under statutory provisions. In the absence of any such attachment or legal prohibition, the prisoner remains entitled to exercise his ownership rights.
Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the Special Judge, the Court observed that judicial decisions cannot rest upon mere imagination or speculative apprehensions. Since the respondents had failed to establish any connection between the property and alleged criminal proceeds, the refusal to permit execution of the Power of Attorney was wholly unsustainable.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Special Judge. It directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur, to immediately attest the General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of his brother and to facilitate its registration at the earliest in accordance with law.
The judgment reinforces the principle that imprisonment pending trial does not strip an individual of his civil and proprietary rights. It also clarifies that the legal framework under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rajasthan Prison Rules adequately protects the authenticity of documents executed within prison, enabling undertrial prisoners to manage and dispose of their property through duly registered powers of attorney while ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards.