Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The respondent, Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, was in judicial custody charged with offences under Section 302 and Section 120B of the IPC (!) (!) (!) .
• While in custody, the respondent was found addressing an election meeting in Madhepura, an act not permitted under the authority of a production warrant issued by the Fast Track Sessions Court (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The respondent was not taken to Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna, as directed after bail cancellation; instead, he was accommodated in a special ward at Patna Medical College with unauthorized staff and personal visitors (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Despite being out on bail granted by the High Court, the respondent allegedly hosted a party for co-prisoners and entered the Jail premises unauthorisedly to visit prohibited areas (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• While in custody, the respondent used a seized cell phone and interacted with hard-core criminals, violating jail rules regarding visitor meetings and political conversations (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The respondent's counsel argued that as an elected Member of Parliament, he was entitled to superior visitation rights and that transferring him would violate his fundamental rights (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court held that the fundamental rights of a prisoner under Article 21 are not absolute and are circumscribed by the Jail Manual and relevant statutes (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court ruled that it has the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer a prisoner from one State to another to ensure the rule of law is not flouted with impunity (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court directed the transfer of the respondent from Beur Jail, Patna (Bihar) to Tihar Jail, Delhi to prevent further illegal activities and ensure strict monitoring (!) (!) (!) .
• The trial in Patna shall continue without the physical presence of the respondent, utilizing video conferencing facilities, unless a specific need arises for his presence regarding a witness statement (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The respondent is entitled to visitation rights as provided under the Tihar Jail Manual, strictly confined to persons entitled under that manual, without any special privileges (!) (!) (!) .

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1129 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar

RESPONDENT:

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2005

BENCH:

N.Santosh Hegde & S.B.Sinha

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 10422 OF 2004

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2004

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

The respondent herein Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav was

in judicial custody. Pursuant to the cancellation of bail by this

Court, he was charged for offences punishable under Section 302

read with Section 120B of the IPC and was to be kept in Adarsh

Jail, Beur, Patna.

When he was supposedly in such judicial custody this Court

noticed from Media report that on 4th of May, 2004 he was found

addressing an election meeting in a place called Madhepura.

Noticing the same, a report was called for from the concerned

authorities to apprise this Court on what authority the respondent

was found in Madhepura on that day and how he was permitted to

address a public meeting.

The reports were received from Home Secretary, State of

Bihar, the Investigat