The transfer of an undertrial prisoner from one prison to another is a judicial or quasi-judicial act that requires the application of mind and compliance with natural justice; it cannot be treated as a mere administrative or ministerial function without hearing the prisoner.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 19-05-2026 passed in Spl.C.C.2055 of 2024, by which the petitioner who was housed in the Central Prison at Bangalore is transferred to the Central Prison, Kalaburagi on the requisition made by the prosecution.

2. Heard Sri Satish K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. The petitioner is accused no. 3 who gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.353 of 2024 initially for offence punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 34 of the IPC. During the investigation, the offence under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act 2000 (‘KCOCA’ for short) and the Arms Act, 1959 are invoked. The petitioner, under-trial prisoner, is now facing trial after the police invoking KCOCA and filing the charge sheet before the concerned court. The issue in the lis does not relate to the merit of the matter.

4. It transpires that on 15-05-2026, during the pendency of the trial in Spl.C.C.2055 of 2024, a requisition springs from the Chief Superintendent of the Prison to the concerned court to transfer the petitioner from Central Prison, Bengaluru to Kalaburagi on the score of alleged prison administration and security concerns in the prison. The matter is advanced before the concerned Court and 4 days thereafter i.e., on 19-05-2026 the concerned Court passes the following order:

“Case is advanced and taken on board.

Learned P.P. is present.

The Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru vide requisition dated 15.5.2026 has made a request to permit the shifting of A-3 - Manjunatha from the said prison to Central Prison, Kalburgi.

Along with the said requisition, several other documents are appended, wherein it is stated that the said Accused in connivance with other inmates of the jail has ganged up with them and thereby causing serious issues to the administration and security of the prison. It is also reported that the said Accused apart from other inmates, has admitted to the illegal use of mobile phones and indulging other unlawful activities in the prison. Further, it is also stated that the DGP, Prisons, has directed to shift the said Accused to Kalburgi after obtaining permission from the Court.

On perusal of said requisition with the records, I am satisfied about the case made out for shifting of A-3 to Central Prison, Kalburgi in view of serious issues of administration and security in the prison.

The request of the Chief Superintendent of Prisons, Bengaluru is approved and A-3 Manjunatha who is in the prison under UTP No. 4851/2024 is ordered to be shifted to Central Prison, Kalburgi, with immediate effect.

Issue necessary directions to the concerned Prison Authorities at Bengaluru as well as Kalburgi and also to issue directions to the Kalburgi Prison to produce him through V.C. on the regular dates of hearing.

Call on 22.05.2026.”

A perusal at the aforesaid order would clearly indicate that it suffers from blatant non-application of mind, as to why the petitioner has to be shifted from Bangalore to Kalaburagi.

5. In identical circumstances, this Court while answering the similar issue in the case of PRADOSH S.RAO v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA¹W.P.No.23848/2024 disposed on 01.10.2024 has held that without cogent reasons, the under-trial prisoners cannot be shifted from one prison to another. This Court has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

….It is not that the prisoner, can choose the prison. Once he is housed in a jurisdictional prison, as an under trial, to shift him to any other prison there must be a cogent reason, and such orders of shifting must bear application of mind. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARATHTRA v. SAEED SOHAIL SHEIKH reported in (2012) 13 SCC 192, while answering an identical circumstance has held as follows:

“25. The forensic debate at the Bar was all about the nature of the power exercisable by the court while permitting