JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:-This is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of Maharashtra at the instance of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Bombay making a grievance against the order dated 25th June, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay by which he has ordered the transfer of the respondent-undertrial-prisoner-Sayyed Noor Hasan Gulam Hussain @ Bawa an accused charged for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code from District Prison, Kalyan to the Bombay Central Prison.

2. We see no justification whatsoever for the impugned order. The respondent was lodged in Kalyan District Prison as per the circular dated 5-5-1993 issued by the Inspector General Police, Pune by which he classified certain prisoners gangwise and ordered them to be lodged in different jails keeping the law and order problem and safety of the prisoners as well as the staff in view. This circular was issued on the basis of an order dated 28th April, 1993 passed by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay under the Terrorist Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ordering the accused in Bombay Bomb Blasts case to be lodged in Bombay Central Prison, in view of largeness of their number and to facilitate their production in the trial. The alleged uncontroverted facts, which provide the background for the issuance of the circular, are that an account of constant enmity and warfare between the members of Amar Naik gang, Dawood gang and Arun Gawli gang, the atmosphere at the Bombay Central Prison was tense. There was a constant apprehension of some untoward incident between these warring groups. Offences like extortion were also rampant in the jail. The Bomb Blasts in the city of Bombay worsened the situation because the accused involved in Bombay Bomb Blasts case came to be lodged in the Bombay Central Prison for the purpose of their production in the Designated Court at Bombay. Most of the accused involved in the Bombay Bomb Blasts case belonged to Dawood gang. On 28th April, 1993, the Judge of the Designated Court was pleased to direct that the accused in the Bombay Bomb Blasts case should be lodged in the Bombay Central Prison since they could be conveniently brought to the designated Court on the remand dates.

3. Considering the imminent possibility of untoward incidents between the rival gangs, a policy decision was taken to divide the prisoners gangwise wherever necessary and to lodge them in different prisons. Members of Amar Naik gang - to which the respondent belonged - were lodged in Kalyan District Prison.

4. The impugned order, according to the petitioner, was passed despite pointing out to the learned Sessions Judge the order passed by the Designated Court and the circular of the I.G. Prisons. The Superintendent of Bombay Central Prison, who was present in Court, requested the Court that such direction may not be issued as there was a possibility of clashes on account of gang rivalry. Not only the Judge did not listen to the request, but cast aspersions on the integrity of the Superintendent, passed insulting and deregatory oral remarks and challenged the authority of the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison, to classify the prisoners in the fashion.

5. If the contents of the affidavit of the Superintendent about casting aspersions on his integrity and passing insulting and derogatory remarks in the presence of prisoner are correct, it is most unfortunate. Since we do not have the version of the learned Sessions Judge, we desist from making any further observations. Needless to mention that every Judge is expected to keep restraint and maintain the dignity in Court. Classification of the prisoners and their placement in different prisons is a relevant policy decision with which courts must be slow to interfere. The gangwise classification of the prisoners under the circumstances was perfectly just and legal and prudence demanded no deviation fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document