Hon’ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By order dated 7.7.2010, passed by the Under Secretary, State Government of U.P., the transfer of the petitioner was permitted and by consequential order dated 12.7.2010, passed by Inspector General, Jail, the petitioner was transferred from Ghazipur Jail to Jaunpur Jail.

2. The petitioner was facing a trial before ADJ Fast Track Court, Ghazipur in Case Crime No. 115/2006, under Section 302, 307 and 120 B, 427, 216, 413, 420 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 5 of Explosive Act, P.S. Karanda, district Ghazipur.

3. Firstly the petitioner was sent to Ghazipur Jail by the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur by exercising his remanding power under Section 167/309 Cr.P.C. Later on by the order dated 7.7.2010, passed by the Under Secretary, State Government of U.P., the transfer of the petitioner was permitted and the petitioner was transferred to District Jail Jaunpur on administrative ground by the order dated 12.7.2010, passed by Inspector General, Jail, respondent No. 2 and subsequently, the Superintendent, District Jail Ghazipur by his order dated 15.7.2010 has sent the petitioner to District Jail Jaunpur and since then he is in District Jail Jaunpur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Remand Magistrate can remand the accused who is in judicial custody only under Section 167 and 309 Cr. P.C., and can keep the supervisory vigil upon the accused persons. It is further submitted that only Remand Magistrate or trial Court, under whose direction the accused person has been remanded to judicial custody, can pass any type of order relating to the transfer of the under trial prisoner.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Hon’ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts including this High Court Allahabad are of the view that under trial prisoners cannot be transferred on the administrative ground by the State Government or by the Jail Authorities. It is submitted that in special circumstances the accused may be transferred from one jail to another jail only after getting the permission of the concerned Magistrate/Court. In this case before transferring of the accused from one jail to another jail, no permission has been taken from the concerned Magistrate/Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given the reference of a judgement of Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh, Laws (SC) 2012-11-5 (741) and stated that in that case it has been held that the under trial prisoner can only be transferred with the permission of the Judicial Authority after giving an opportunity of being heard to the under trial prisoner.

7. It is further submitted that as a rule of law the prisoner should be given an opportunity of hearing before his transfer from one jail to another.

8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred few cases of various Courts; like, Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, Single Judge Case of Court in Misc Single No. 7677 of 2014 (Ram Shlok Pandey v. State of U.P. In the aforesaid cases relevant provisions regarding the transfer of the prisoners have been discussed.

9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before proving the guilt by Court beyond reasonable doubt the prisoner is not a convicted person and he be dealt like a innocent person.

10. Learned AGA supported the grounds of the impugned orders and submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the State Authority and the Jail Authorities.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the rival sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that Section 267 would be attracted in the course of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code and on the satisfaction of a criminal Court for passing such an order. Section 267 does not make any distinction