Important point
As the concerned authorities, especially the authorities at the Beur Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to control the illegal activities of Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, he is transferred outside Bihar, from Beur Jail, Patna to Tihar Jail, Delhi.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/120B—Constitution of India—Article 142—Transfer of Pappu Yadav from Beur Jail, Patna to Tihar Jail, Delhi—Respondent, an undertrial in a conspiracy to murder case, has time and again flouted the law even while he was in custody and sometimes even when he was on bail—Authorities manning the Beur jail and the concerned doctors of the Patna Medical College Hospital, either willingly or otherwise, have enabled the respondent to flout the law—Authorities at the Beur Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to control the illegal activities of the respondent—When respondent was in judicial custody, Supreme Court noticed from Media report that he was found addressing an election meeting—When he was arrested after the cancellation of bail by the Supreme Court, he was never taken to the Jail—Under the special orders of Doctor concerned, respondent was accommodated in a special ward—Illegal facilities granted to respondent—It is imperative that respondent be transferred outside Bihar—There being no provision for transfer of an undertrial prisoner—Exercise of powers of Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer respondent to Tihar Jail, Delhi.
       Held : The respondent has sufficient clout or enormous influence for reasons whatever it may be with the administration and staff of the Patna Medical College who are prepared to go out of the way to help the respondent from being kept in the confines of a Jail and in providing unauthorised facilities to the respondent. (Para 6)
       On coming to know of these illegal facilities granted to the respondent this Court directed his transfer to Beur Jail and to provide him treatment, if need be, in the prisoner’s cell there. In the normal course one would have expected an accused whose bail has been cancelled and who was intending to make an application for grant of bail to behave in a manner not to give any room for the prosecution to contend that he has been misusing the facilities available to him in law while he is in Jail. But it seems, it is not the attitude of the respondent. (Paras 7 and 8)
       It has also come on record that while in judicial custody the respondent was using cell phone which was seized from him and he was closely interacting with hard core criminals who were undergoing Jail sentence or are under trial prisoners. The Respondent No.1 while was in judicial custody has been accused of hatching a conspiracy to murder one Dimple Mehta in relation whereto a First Information Report being Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 159/2004 has been lodged on 28.9.2004 under Section 302/120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It appears from the order sheet dated 25.2.2003 of the Court of Addl. Session Judge XI, Patna that the informant Shri Kalyan Chandra Sarkar had been given the threat by veteran criminals and, thus, the Senior S.P. of Patna as well as S.P. was directed to make proper security arrangement for him and his family members. (Paras 11 to 13)
       It is now beyond any controversy that such visits by a large number of persons inside the jail is in violation of the provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual and in particular Rules 623, 626-628 thereof. Even upon his election as a Member of Parliament from Madhepura constituency he was not entitled to have such visitors having regard to Special Rules for Division I Prisoners, Rule 1000 which permits interviews only once every fortnight and Rule 1001 which debars political matters being included in the conversation. These rules also stand violated. Thus, the material recorded hereinabove shows that the respondent has absolutely no respect for rule of law nor he is in any manner afraid of the consequences of his unlawful acts. This is clear from the fact that some of the acts of the respondent recorded hereinabove have been committed even when his application for grant of bail is pending. The material on record also shows that the Jail authorities at Beur are not in a position to control the illegal activities of this respondent for whatever reasons it may be. (Paras 15 to 17)
       Therefore, in our opinion, a convict or an undertrial who disobeys the law of the land, cannot contend that it is not permissible to transfer him from one jail to another because the Jail Manual does not provide for it. If the factual situation requires the transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another, be he a convict or an undertrial. Courts are not to be a helpless bystander when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity. The arms of law are long enough to remedy the situation even by transferring a prisoner from one prison to another, that is by assuming that the concerned Jail Manual does not provide such a transfer. In our opinion, the argument of the learned counsel, as noted above, undermines the authority and majesty of law. The facts narrated hereinabove clearly show that the respondent has time and again flouted the law even while he was in custody and sometimes even when he was on bail. We must note herein with all seriousness that the authorities manning the Beur jail and the concerned doctors of the Patna Medical College Hospital, for their own reasons, either willingly or otherwise, have enabled the respondent to flout the law. In this process, we think the concerned authorities, especially the authorities at the Beur Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to control the illegal activities of the respondent. Therefore, it is imperative that the respondent be transferred outside Bihar. (Para 23)
       There being no statutory provisions contrary thereto, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India may issue necessary direction. (Para 25)
       While it is true that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer the respondent out of State of Bihar, we are required to keep in mind certain basic rights available to the respondent which should not be denied by transferring the respondent to any one of the Jail suggested by CBI. It will cause some hardship to the wife and children of the respondent who we are told are normally residents of Delhi. His wife being Member of Parliament and two young children going to school in Delhi. 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 the same is entitled 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. (Para 44)

Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.—The respondent herein Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav was in judicial custody. Pursuant to the cancellation of bail by this Court, he was charged for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and was to be kept in Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna.

2. When he was supposedly in such judicial custody this Court noticed from Media report that on 4th of May, 2004 he was found addressing an election meeting in a place called Madhepura. Noticing the same, a report was called for from the concerned authorities to apprise this Court on what authority the respondent was found in Madhepura on that day and how he was permitted to address a public meeting.

3. The reports were received from Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Investigating Agency (CBI) and the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court, Madhepura.

4. The above reports showed that Fast Track Sessions Court. Madhepura in a pending trial before it had issued a production warrant and pursuant to the said warrant respondent was taken to Madhepura. Report also stated that the said day was declared as holiday, therefore, he was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded back to custody. The reports did not, however, indicate on what basis the respondent was permitted to address a political meeting while he was still under custody. The averment in the report filed by the CBI shows that the respondent in collusion with the police authorities accompanying him to Madhepura addressed a public meeting and the escort accompanying him took him to various places which the respondent wanted to visit beyond the scope of the production warrant.

5. The correctness of the issue of the production warrant by Fast Track Court has been directed by us to be investigated by the District & Sessions Judge, Madhepura and the report of the said Judge as well as the explanation given by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court is under consideration of this Court and it is not necessary to deal with the same at this stage. Suffice it to note that the respondent had misused the authority of the production warrant issued by the Madhepura Fast Track Court.

6. During the above inquiry, we also came to know that pursuant to the order of this Court canceling his bail on 12th of March, 2004, we had directed the respondent to be taken into custody but in effect the respondent was never taken to the Jail. When he was arrested after the cancellation of bail and taken to Patna very surprisingly an urgent Medical Board was constituted to examine the respondent which immediately on its constitution and examination of the respondent directed that the respondent required medical treatment at Patna Medical College, hence, directed his stay in the said medical college. Though Patna Medical College Hospital has a separate prisoner cell for their treatment, under the special orders of Doctor concerned and the Superintendent of the hospital, petitioner was accommodated in a special ward. The accommodation provided was not only for the respondent but also for his personal staff and others whose presence with respondent was unauthorised. Reply filed by the Superintendent of Patna Medical College and the concerned Doctor who advised his being kept in a special ward is full of contradiction as to why and who ordered his treatment in a special ward. A separate inquiry is being conducted by this Court in this regard but for the present it will suffice to note that the respondent has sufficient clout or enormous influence for reasons whatever it may be with the administration and staff of the Patna Medical College who are prepared to go out of the way to help the respondent from being kept in the confines of a Jail and in providing unauthorised facilities to the respondent.

7. On coming to know of these illegal facilities granted to the respondent this Court directed his transfer to Beur Jail and to provide him treatment, if need be, in the prisoner’s cell there.

8. In th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 106

Important pointAs the concerned authorities, especially the authorities at the Beur Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to control the illegal activities of Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, he is transferred outside Bihar, from Beur Jail, Patna to Tihar Jail, Delhi.

Cases Referred (24)

Important point
As the concerned authorities, especially the authorities at the Beur Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to control the illegal activities of Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, he is transferred outside Bihar, from Beur Jail, Patna to Tihar Jail, Delhi.