SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Pradosh S. Rao, S/o. Subbarao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Through Its Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Secretary to Government (PCAS) Department of Home Rep. by State Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23848 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 01-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Hitesh Gowda B. J., Advocate A/W., Sri Aditya D., and Sri Santosh V.
For the Respondent: Sri B.A. Belliappa, SPP A/W., Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP.

IMPORTANT POINT
Transfer of under-trial prisoners requires judicial reasoning and fair procedure; arbitrary transfers violate rights and must be quashed.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Transfer of under-trial prisoner - The petitioner challenged the order directing his transfer from Bangalore Central Prison to Belagavi, arguing lack of justification and application of mind by the Magistrate - The court found the transfer unsustainable as it violated principles of fair procedure and judicial reasoning, emphasizing the need for cogent reasons for such actions. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

(B) Judicial Orders - The court reiterated that transfer of under-trial prisoners is a judicial or quasi-judicial act requiring fair consideration and opportunity for the affected party to present objections. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, accused No.14 in a murder case, was transferred without justification based on media reports concerning another accused, leading to claims of mistreatment in prison.

Findings of Court:

The court quashed the transfer order, directing the petitioner to be returned to Bangalore Central Prison, citing lack of proper justification for the transfer.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the transfer order and the treatment of the petitioner in prison.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer lacked judicial reasoning and violated the principles of fair procedure, necessitating the reversal of the order.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; transfer order quashed.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner / accused No.14 in Crime No.250 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 27-08-2024 passed by the XXIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, directing transfer of the petitioner, an under-trial prisoner, from Bangalore Central Prison to Belagavi.

2. Heard Sri B.J. Hitesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.A. Belliappa learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner, as observed above, is arraigned as accused No.14. A crime comes to be registered by the Kamakshipalya Police on 09-06-2024 against several accused, in which accused No.2 is Darshan. The petitioner was arrested the next day i.e., on 10-06-2024 and remanded to judicial custody along with others. The issue in the lis does not pertain to enlargement of the petitioner on bail or any other issue on its merit. The 3rd respondent submits a requisition to the learned Magistrate to transfer all the accused in Crime No.250 of 2024 to different prisons in the State of Karnataka. The reason is that, on the print electronic media, photographs of accused No.2, Darshan sitting along with a rowdy, Wilsongarden Naga, appeared, in which he is said to be consuming tea, holding a cigarette. On the ground that the photograph would demoralize witnesses and would provide room for suspicion in the eyes of general public on differential treatment being given to Darshan, the under-trial prisoners were sought to be transferred. The petitioner was not in the scene. The petitioner then learning that the learned Magistrate has directed his transfer even, on 29-08-2024 approaches this Court in the subject petition.

4. A co-ordinate bench of this Court on the very day i.e., on 29-08-2024, granted stay of the order qua the petitioner only, if he is not already shifted. It is said that the petitioner/accused No.14 was in transit when the order was passed. Therefore, the order did not bring in any benefit to the petitioner. He is transferred to Belagavi Central Prison as an under-trial prisoner bearing a number -UTR 6109 of 2024. The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court contending that for no fault of his, he has been shifted.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner/accused No.14 was not in the scene, in the company of Darshan, accused No.2 or Wilsongarden Naga, as the case would be. He is housed in a different cell far away from all the accused. What was happening in the prison qua Darshan was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. He would submit that the learned Magistrate without application of mind has transferred the petitioner to a different jail. He would allege that when the wife of the petitioner went to meet him, shocking revelations were made by the husband / accused No.14, that he was housed in an Andheri Cell, a cell with darkness for 15 hours and is made to sit in front of the camera for 8 hours, on the score that he is under observation.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I refutes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; the petitioner is neither in Andheri Cell nor he is being subjected to torture of 15 hours in darkness or to sit 8 hours before the camera. Nonetheless this Court on 25-09-2024 passed the following order :

    “ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.14 in Crime No.250/2024 is given a number, Under Trial Prisoner UTR 6109/2024 and was housed in Central Prison, Bengaluru. On certain incidents that had cropped up later all the accused involved in Crime No.250/2024 were sought to be shifted from Central Prison, Bengaluru to different Prisons of the State. The petitioner lands in Belagavi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved this matter on the score that he is being harassed by the Jail Authority inside the Prison.

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top