2005 (2) TMI 883 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Offences punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 120B of the IPC - transfer of an under-trial prisoner from jail - arrest after the cancellation of bail - respondent was permitted to address a political meeting while he was still under custody - illegal activities in jail premises - HELD THAT - It is true that in a normal trial the Criminal Procedure Code requires the accused to be present at the trial but in the peculiar circumstances of this case a procedure will have have to be evolved, which will not be contrary to the rights given to an accused under the Criminal Procedure Code but at the same time protect the administration of justice. Therefore, as held by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 (4) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT , we think the above requirement of the Code could be met by directing the trial by video conferencing facility. In our opinion, this is one of those rare cases wherein a frequent visit from the place of detention to the court of trial in Bihar would prejudice the security of both the respondent and others involved in the case. Apart from being a heavy burden on the State exchequer. It is in this background the CBI has submitted that the prisons at Chennai. Palayamkottai Central Jail, Vellor Central Jail, Coimbatore Central Jail all in the State of Tamilnadu and Mysore Central Jail in the State of Karnataka has video conferencing facilities. Therefore the respondent can be transferred to any one of those Jails. Taking into consideration the overall fact situation of the case, we think it appropriate that the respondent be transferred to Tihar Jail at Delhi and we direct the seniormost officer-in-charge of Tihar Jail to make such arrangements as he thinks is necessary to prevent the reoccurrence of the activities of the respondent of the nature referred to hereinabove and shall allow no special privileges to him unless he is entitled to the same in law. His conduct during his custody in Tihar Jail will specially be monitored and if necessary be reported to this Court. However, the respondent shall be entitled to the benefit of the visit of his family as provided for under the Jail manual of Tihar. He shall also be entitled to such categorization and such facilities available to him in law. We also direct that the trial of the case in Patna shall continue without the presence of the appellant by the court dispensing such presence and to the extent possible shall be conducted with the aid of video conferencing. However, in the event of the respondent making any application for his transfer for sole purpose of being present during the recording of the statement of any particular witness same will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge on its merit and if he thinks it appropriate, he may direct the authorities of Tihar Jail to produce accused before him for that limited purpose. This, however, will be in a rare and important situation only and if such transfer order is made the respondent shall be taken from Tihar Jail to the court concerned and if need be detained in appropriate Jail at the place of trial and under the custody and charge of the police to be specially deputed by the authorities of Tihar Jail who shall bear in mind the factual situation in which the respondent has been transferred from Patna to Delhi. As stated above the respondent shall be entitled for the visitation rights of his family members as provided under the Tihar Jail manual. It shall be strictly followed and will be confined to only such persons who are entitled for such visit. In compliance of this order, we direct the State of Bihar to transfer the respondent from Beur Jail, Patna to Tihar Jail, Delhi and hand over the prisoner to the authorized officer by prior intimation to Tihar Jail authorities of his arrival in Delhi. The authorities escorting the respondent from Patna to Delhi shall strictly follow the rules applicable to the transit prisoners and no special privilege should be shown, any such act if proved, will be taken serious note of. The respondent shall be transferred to Tihar Jail from Patna within one week from the date of this order.

Issues Involved:
1. Misuse of production warrant and judicial custody.
2. Unauthorized medical treatment and special accommodations.
3. Unauthorized activities and visits in jail.
4. Violation of bail conditions and unauthorized entry into jail.
5. Use of mobile phones and interaction with criminals in jail.
6. Conspiracy to commit murder while in custody.
7. Violation of jail manual rules regarding visitations.
8. Transfer of the respondent to another state under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misuse of Production Warrant and Judicial Custody:
The respondent, while in judicial custody, was found addressing an election meeting in Madhepura on May 4, 2004. Reports from various authorities revealed that the respondent was taken to Madhepura under a production warrant issued by the Fast Track Sessions Court. However, the reports did not explain how he was permitted to address a public meeting while under custody. It was noted that the respondent misused the authority of the production warrant.

2. Unauthorized Medical Treatment and Special Accommodations:
After the respondent's bail was canceled, an urgent Medical Board directed that he required treatment at Patna Medical College. Despite having a separate prisoner cell, the respondent was accommodated in a special ward along with unauthorized personal staff. Contradictory explanations were provided by the concerned doctor and hospital superintendent. The court highlighted the respondent's influence over the administration and staff of the Patna Medical College.

3. Unauthorized Activities and Visits in Jail:
The respondent was found hosting a party for co-prisoners and unauthorizedly visiting the jail on September 26, 2004, while out on bail. Reports confirmed his unauthorized entry into the jail, leading to an investigation and transfer of some jail authorities. Additionally, the respondent was found meeting visitors in the administrative block of Beur Jail, violating jail manual rules.

4. Violation of Bail Conditions and Unauthorized Entry into Jail:
The respondent moved a fresh bail application after the cancellation of his bail, which was granted by the High Court. However, while out on bail, he hosted a party for co-prisoners and unauthorizedly entered the jail. The court directed the respondent to surrender to custody, and he was taken back to jail.

5. Use of Mobile Phones and Interaction with Criminals in Jail:
The respondent was found using a cell phone and interacting with hardcore criminals while in judicial custody. This was in violation of jail regulations and indicated his disregard for the rule of law.

6. Conspiracy to Commit Murder While in Custody:
The respondent was accused of hatching a conspiracy to murder Dimple Mehta, leading to the lodging of an FIR under relevant sections of the IPC and Arms Act. The court noted the threat posed by the respondent to witnesses and the need for proper security arrangements.

7. Violation of Jail Manual Rules Regarding Visitations:
The respondent violated the Bihar Jail Manual rules by meeting visitors in unauthorized areas and having political conversations. The court emphasized that his status as a Member of Parliament did not entitle him to special privileges beyond the statutory rules.

8. Transfer of the Respondent to Another State Under Article 142 of the Constitution:
The court considered the respondent's repeated violations of the law and the inability of Beur Jail authorities to control his activities. Citing the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, and the plenary powers under Article 142, the court directed the respondent's transfer to Tihar Jail, Delhi. The court ensured that the respondent's basic rights were protected, including visitation rights and categorization according to the law. The trial in Patna was to continue via video conferencing to balance the need for security and the respondent's right to a fair trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, ordered the transfer of the respondent to Tihar Jail, Delhi, to ensure the rule of law and prevent further misuse of judicial custody. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to jail manual rules and directed all authorities to comply with its order.

← Previous Next →