(1) THE government of Bihar has filed before us a note containing the proposed clarification of paragraph 2(e) of the government Order dated 9/02/1979, pursuant to the suggestion made by us in our order dated February 19, 1979. This clarification states in paragraph I that where the police investigation in a case has been delayed by over two years, the Superintendent of Police will see to it that the investigation is completed expeditiously and final report or charge-sheet is submitted by the police as quickly as possible and the responsibility to ensure this has been laid personally on the Superintendent of Police. We are glad to note that the State government has responded to our suggestion but we are not at all sure whether it is enough merely to provide that the investigation would be completed expeditiously and the final report or charge-sheet submitted as quickly as possible. We are of the view that a reasonable time limit should be set by the State government within which these steps should be taken, so that no further delay is occasioned in the submission of the final report or charge-sheet. We fail to see how any police investigation can take so long as two years and if police investigation cannot be completed within two years, then there must be something radically wrong with the police force in the State of Bihar. It appears that there are a number of cases where police investigation has not been completed for over two years and persons have been injail as undertrial prisoners for long periods. This is a shocking state of affairs so far as the administration of law and order is concerned. We would, therefore, suggest that in those cases where police investigation has been delayed by over two years, the final report or charge-sheet must be submitted by the police within a further period of three months and if that is not done, the State government might well withdraw such cases, because if after a period of over two years plus an additional period of three months, the police is not able to file a charge-sheet, one can reasonably assume that there is no case against the arrested persons.

(2) THE government of Bihar has also filed a counterffidavit made by Mr. Mrinmaya Choudhury, Assistant Inspector General of Prisons (1), Bihar setting out the particulars in regard to 18 undertrial prisoners who have been ordered to be released by us on their personal bond. The particulars given in this counter-affidavit make very distressing reading. It appears from this counter-affidavit that there are quite a few women prisoners who are in jail without even being accused of any offence, merely because they happen to be victims of an offence or they are required for the purpose of giving evidence or they are in "protective custody". The expression protective custody is a euphemism calculated to disguise what is really and in truth nothing but imprisonment. It is an expression intended to appease the conscience. It cannot be gainsaid that women who have been kept in jail under the guise of protective custody have suffered involuntary deprivation of liberty for long periods without any fault on their part. We may point out that this so-called protective custody is nothing short of a blatant violation of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, because we are not aware of any provision of law under which a woman can be kept in jail by way of protective custody or merely because she is required for the purpose of giving evidence. The government in a social welfare State must set up rescue and welfare homes for the purpose of taking care of women and children who have nowhere else to go and who are otherwise uncared for by the society. It is the duty of government to protect women and children who are homeless or destitute and it is surprising that the government of Bihar should have come forward with the explanation that they were constrained to keep women in protective custody in jail because a w