By the Court.—This petition questions the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 25.2.2015 whereby the learned Magistrate has passed an order granting permission to transfer the petitioner to some other Jail from the District Jail at Muzaffarnagar where he had been detained.

2. Learned A.G.A. for the respondent - State Sri Nitin Sharma had been called upon to obtain instructions as well in the matter. A written instructions signed by the Superintendent of Jail, Muzaffarnagar, dated 27.4.2015 has been placed before the Court.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 16.2.2015 in the circumstances as indicated in the F.I.R. It appears that one Vikky Tyagi, an alleged gang leader, had gone to attend his case in the Court of Xth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, on 16.2.2015 when he was attacked by several persons including the petitioner, who allegedly fired shots leaving him dead in the Court premises. It is in this background that the petitioner is alleged to have indulged into a gang war as Vikky Tyagi himself is narrated to be one of the leaders of the gang and came to be taken into custody.

4. This background led to the moving of an application by the Superintendent of Jail for transferring the petitioner to some other Jail and it is this application, which has been disposed of as a misc. application by the order impugned dated 25.2.2015. The Court has recorded that after receipt of the said application, the same was served on the petitioner calling upon him to give a reply to the same by 21.2.2015. The petitioner admitted having received the said application on 20.2.2015 and thereafter moved an application on 21.2.2015 itself in the shape of an objection, a certified copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has stated that the petitioner’s uncle and other relatives are already detained in Muzaffarnagar Jail and, therefore, he is safe with his family members hence he should not be transferred to any other Jail. He is alleged to have moved another application on 23.2.2015 praying for time to give a further reply and also to file documents with regard to his juvenility.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Zaidi and Mr. Rajul Bhargava have urged that without giving any further opportunity, the impugned order was passed and, therefore, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.

6. The Court below has recorded that several other accused of the gang of Vikrant alias Vikky Tyagi are lodged in the same Jail and there is every likelihood of a serious gang war. The petitioner himself has disclosed his age to be about 19 years and, therefore, it is not necessary at this stage to consider any plea of juvenility. It has further been recorded that in the aforesaid background if the petitioner is transferred to some other Jail, then no prejudice will be caused and rather it would be in the interest of the petitioner and his security.

7. The Court further recorded that in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and others, (2012) 13 SCC 192, opportunity has been given to the petitioner who has filed his objection and, as such, natural justice having been complied with, permission was granted to transfer the petitioner to some other Jail. Directions were issued to take ample security measures and medical care of the petitioner while doing so.

8. It is this impugned order, which has been challenged contending that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice as no further time had been granted and secondly it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner for which reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1991 SC 746 and the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and others (supra).

9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner wou