1. The petitioner is an under-trial prisoner in Bagaha Sub-Jail in connection with Sagaha P.S. Case No. 47/2002. He has approached this Court with three fold grievance. He is aggrieved by his cellular confinement. He also complains ;of being kept in fetters. Lastly, he submits that he is being denied audience with his lawyers and relatives and friends as and when he desires.

2. As far as the second grievance is concerned, the admitted position now is that fetters have been removed and therefore so far as that part of the relief is concerned, the same stands redressed by the respondent authorities.

3. The core question which arises for consideration relates to petitioners cellular confinement. The fact that the petitioner is being kept in cell is not disputed by the respondents.

What they say is that the confinement is solitary. According to them, the petitioner is a hard core criminal involved in as many as 17 cases of murder, dacoity and extortion pending against him. It is said that he has formed a group of criminals , he tried to kidnap the Head Warder Sri Prabhu Singh, and also created law and order problem inside the Jail. He was shifted to Muzaffarpur jail on administrative ground to maintain law and order inside the jail.

The respondents thus aver that the petitioner has been kept in separate confinement due to security reasons.

4 We heard Shri Baxi S.R.P. Sinha on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.D. Yadav, Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents.

5. Shri Sinha submitted that the point at issue is covered by a Bench decision of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Singh "Rakesh" v. State of Bihar, 1927 Pat LJR 178, wherein the Court made distinction between cellular confinement and separate confinement and held that on the ground of separate confinement a prisoner cannot be kept in cell.The Court also held that cellular confinement can be awarded to a condemned prisoner and/or as punishment for prison offences. It cannot be justified on ground of security. The plea of the petitioner, it would appear, is fully covered by the said decision and the writ petition to this extent is fit to succeed. However, in view of the significance of the question involved, we would like to refer to the relevant provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Bihar Jail Manual, and also to some of the decisions of the Apex Court on the point. Before we do so, we may notice the contentions of the Government Advocate. Placing reliance on Rule 854 of the Jail Manual he submitted that the rule permits putting restrictions on under-trial prisoner so far as the same is consistent with the maintenance of order and discipline in the Jail. In our opinion the provision rather aims at preserving the rights of under-trial prisoners which is evident from the words, an unconvicted criminal prisoner shall be subjected to "as little interference" as is consistent with the maintenance of order and discipline. The latter part of the rule would indicate that the rule refers to living conditions of the prisoners. Learned Government Advocate referred to the case of Charles Sobraj V/s. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 1514 : (1978 Cri LJ 1534), particularly the observations in paragraphs 15 of the judgment. The judgment was rendered in the context of request made by the prisoner to provide more amenities. The Supreme Court noticed that the petitioner had already been awarded conviction in two cases and having regard to his past conduct held that he could not be allowed the desired amenities. The decision has no relevance in the present case. The facts of the case were entirely different and the prisoner had already been awarded conviction in two cases and, therefore, could not be regarded as under-trial prisoner.

6. Before we refer to the provisions of 2004 the Prisons Act, we may observe that though conviction and confinement of an accused in jail brings certain restrictions on his fundamental rights, such as, right to free movement in