JUDGMENT : P.K. Banerji, J. This writ application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India from Ramesh Kumar Singh “Rakesh” who claims to be an undertrial prisoner was forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Patna and the application was duly admitted. This petition was accompanied with a separate petition by which the petitioner asked for leave of the Court to urge his writ application before the Court in person. The prayer was considered by this Court in the light of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the prayer was rejected by ORDER :dated 26.11.71 by which it was recorded that the petitioner if advised could engage a counsel to represent his case before the Court. In pursuance of this ORDER :Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji, counsel, filed power and presented the petitioner's case before us. 2. In the writ application it is stated inter alia that the petitioner is an accused in trial no. 747 of 1971 which is pending before Sri M. N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, and he is confined in the Central Jail at Patna as an under-trial prisoner. He has been put in cell since 24.7.1971 without assigning any reason. The year 1971' appears to be incorrect as will appear from Annexure 1 a representation filed by the petitioner earlier on 24.12.1970, in which the date of commencement of cell confinement stated was 24.7.1970. The petitioner's contention is that his status is that of an under-trial prisoner but it has virtually been converted into that of a condemned prisoner by his confinement in a cell. I t is contended that he has not committed any "prison offence" under the Jail Manual Rules and his confinement in a cell amounts to a kind of punishment meted out to him to cause mental and physical torture and no procedure was followed in putting the petitioner to cell confinement and as such his confinement is contrary to law and the prescribed rules. It is also said that his representations before the Jail authorities have gone so far unheeded. Other matters stated in the petition need not be referred to as they are not very relevant for the purpose of this writ application and Mr. It is also said that his representations before the Jail authorities have gone so far unheeded. Other matters stated in the petition need not be referred to as they are not very relevant for the purpose of this writ application and Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner, has confined himself to only one question namely that the confinement of the petitioner in a cell within the Central Jail of Patna since 24.7.1970, without any prison offence and consequent punishment is against all rules and procedure provided in the Jail Manual. 3. It may be noted that no counter-affidavit on behalf of the State except the one dated 26.11.1971, on the basis of which the State opposed the petitioner's prayer for leave to appear in person before the Court to place his case, was filed and Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad learned counsel for the State conceded before us that the petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh "Rakesh", is confined in a cell not as punishment meted out to him for any prison offence but by way of security measure. I may also refer in this connection to the report on record dated 5.11.1971 received by this Court in compliance with the Court's ORDER :from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patna, and in which it was stated that the petitioner is a desperate prisoner, had effected his escape from police custody while in transit and the desperate character so revealed by his escape is unheard of amongst the upper division prisoners. He was re-arrested and to ward off his future attempt to escape under ORDER :s received from the higher jail authorities on the 23rd of July, 1970, the same security precautions as applicable to the condemned prisoners have been enforced against him though he is not being treated as a condemned prisoner. It is also stated in the report that the petitioner is not kept in a cell as punishment but for safe custody. 4. Although, the petitioner has described himself as an undertrial prisoner he has admitted in paragraph 9 of his petition that the petitioner was an upper division prisoner in the District Jail of Chapra. It appears that in his alleged successful bid to escape from custody while in transit from Chapra Jail to Gaya Central Jail on 14.9.1969, and after his alleged re-arrest at. It appears that in his alleged successful bid to escape from custody while in transit from Chapra Jail to Gaya Central Jail on 14.9.1969, and after his alleged re-arrest at. Harkhua Railway Station premises with a foreign made revolver on 20.7.1970, cases have been instituted against him under the Penal Code and under the Arms Act and since these cases are pending, the petitioner claims himself to be an undertrial prisoner. That however does not alter the position appreciably so far as the question regarding his cell confinement in the Central Jail of Patna since 24.7.1970 is concerned. In the absence of any counter-affidavit on behalf of the State controverting the petitioner's contention that he has been in cell confinement since 24.7.1970, it cannot but beheld that the petitioner is in such confinement since that date, a fact which has been noticed earlier and which finds adequate support from the report of the Jail Superintendent in this Court dated 5.11.1971, and it is also established that the petitioner is in cell confinement not by way of punishment for any prison offence but as a security measure. 5. Rule 693 onwards in Chapter XX of the Jail Manual deals with cells and their use. Cells for cellular and solitary confinement are provided in jails and are made with standard plan and each cell is required to have a yard attached to it where the prisoner can have the benefit of fresh air without having the means of communication with any other prisoner. There has to be a general yard in which each prisoner confined can be bathed, fed and exercised at the regular hours. In the outer door of the separate yard attached to each cell an eyehole is to be made so that the prisoner can be seen without seeing anyone. 6. Rule 693A provides that the cell may be for (a) carrying out sentences of solitary confinement under Sections 37 and 74 of the Penal Code, (b) the separate and celluar confinement of prisoner under Section 46 (8) and (10) of Act I of 1894, (c) the separation of habituals under Rule 581. . (d) x x x (e) x x x (f) x x x (g) x x x (h) x x x (i) the confinement of prisoner condemned to death. 7. . (d) x x x (e) x x x (f) x x x (g) x x x (h) x x x (i) the confinement of prisoner condemned to death. 7. Rule 696 provides that every prisoner confined in a cell shall invariably, be in the immediate charge of a warder assisted if necessary during the day by specially selected officers. Both by day and by night the guards shall be so posted and arranged that all the prisoners in cells shall at all times have the means of communicating with a jail officer. Every prisoner so confined shall be visited by a head warder once every two hours during the day and night. 8. Rule 697 says that a strict watch shall be kept over all prisoners confined in cells. 9. Rule 700 provides however that every prisoner confined in a cell for more than 24 hours shall be visited by the Superintendent and also by the Medical Officer or medical subordinate. The jailor shall visit the cell and see every prisoner confined therein daily. 10. Rule 679 of the Bihar Jail Manual defines that "Cellular confinement" is confinement in a cell, with or without labour, so as to exclude the prisoner entirely from communication with but not from the sight of other prisoners. The convict cell attendant shall have access to his cell to give the prisoner his food and attend to conservancy, but the prisoner shall have his meals alone, and bathe in his cell yard. Cellular confinement may be awarded for not more than fourteen days and after each period of cellular confinement an interval of not less duration than such period shall elapse before the prisoner is again sentenced to other cellular confinement. 11. Rule 680 provides that "separate confinement" is confinement in a cell, with or without labour, so as to seclude the prisoner whilst in his cell from communication with, but not from sight of other prisoners. The outer batten door of the cell yard in cells built on the standard plan shall be open and a prisoner undergoing the punishment shall have not Jess than one hour's exercise daily in the common passage in front of the cell or other sufficient space under the eye of a paid warder, and shall have his meals in association with one or more other prisoners. Superintendents may award separate confinement up to 30 days. Superintendents may award separate confinement up to 30 days. If any period in excess of this up to 3 months is deemed necessary the ORDER :of the Inspector-General shall be obtained. Then submitting an application for such ORDER :the Superintendents shall forward a certificate of the Medical Officer of the fitness of the prisoner to undergo separate confinement for the period recommended or for any other period the Medical Officer may consider the prisoner fit to undergo. 12. It is thus clear that cellular confinement is not exactly the same as separate confinement and cellular confinement cannot be awarded for more than days at a time. It is also essential that after each period of cellular confinement an interval for not less duration than the said period shall elapse before the prisoner is again sentenced to another cellular confinement. In the present case the petitioner has been in cell confinement continuously since 24.7.1970 and this by itself is in complete violation and disregard of Rule 679 of the Jail Manual. 13. The next contention of the learned counsel has been to the effect that a prisoner could not and cannot be kept in cell unless and until he commits a prison offence which the petitioner has never committed. Learned counsel for the State as noted earlier conceded that the petitioner has not been kept in cell confinement by way of punishment but a security measure. Reference in this connection may be made to Rule 664 which provides that the Superintendent may award punishment enumerated in Section 46 of the Act IX of 1894 classified into minor and major punishments and Sub-rule (7) provides cellular confinement for minor offence for a period not more than seven days and for major punishment under Sub-rule (3) of the second part of that Section the Superintendent may award cellular confinement for a period exceeding seven days. 14. It has also been noticed in reference to Rule 680 dealing with separate confinement that the Superintendent may award separate confinement up to 30 days and if any period in excess to this is deemed necessary the ORDER :of the Inspector General shall be obtained In the instant case however is a case of cellular confinement and not of separate confinement. Reference to Rule 692 of the Jail Manual indicates that a register has to be maintained in respect of the punishment known as Punishment Register (no. Reference to Rule 692 of the Jail Manual indicates that a register has to be maintained in respect of the punishment known as Punishment Register (no. 19) and in keeping this register instruction given in Rule 65 shall be strictly complied with. The classification of every punishment as major or minor should be carefully recorded in the column set apart for the purpose. Since the petitioner was not put in cell by way of punishment no such entry against him could have been entered in any such punishment register and no procedure justifying the confinement of the petitioner in a cell was adopted and followed in the instant case and judged from all aspects the cellular confinement of the petitioner seems to be wholly unjustified. 15. Cellular confinement as is apparent from above is a very severe punishment for a prisoner and ordinarily it is meant for condemned prisoner only; for prison offence also such cellular confinement or solitary confinement is provided in the Jail Manual subject to the limitation of the Superintendents and the Inspector General of Prisons as provided in the Manual aforesaid, and on no account a prisoner other than a condemned prisoner can be confined to a cell which causes acute mental and physical torture to the prisoner and is against the present day thinking of the changing society. In fact the jail authorities themselves as is printed in the preface of the Bihar Jail Manual itself should be aware of the fact that with a changing society and progress in Criminology and Correctional techniques the approach to treatment of offenders cannot remain static and amendments of rules for the management of the prisons can be looked forward to as a sign of receptivity of the administration to social progress. 15. Mr. Lab Kailash Bihari Prasad referred us to Rule 1007 to justify the confinement of the petitioner in the cell with effect from 24-7-1970. The rule provides that prisoners of Division I shall ordinarily be confined in the Central Jail at Hazaribagh if their sentences are over a fortnight but the Inspector-General of Prisons may ORDER :the transfer of prisoner of this division to or their detention in any jail in the State in which there is suitable accommodation for them. The rule provides that prisoners of Division I shall ordinarily be confined in the Central Jail at Hazaribagh if their sentences are over a fortnight but the Inspector-General of Prisons may ORDER :the transfer of prisoner of this division to or their detention in any jail in the State in which there is suitable accommodation for them. Prisoners of Division I shall be kept separate from other prisoners as far as possible not except when this is imposed as a jail punishment, the imprisonment of such prisoner should in no case involve anything of the nature of separate confinement. They may, however, be kept in cells where cellular accommodation is available but should be allowed to associate during the specified hours of the day, e. g. at meals or in the exercise yard. Separate confinement may suitably be imposed as a punishment on any prisoner of this class who takes any concerted action to undermine jail discipline or tamper with the jail staff. This rule has absolutely no application to the case of the petitioner because it is conceded that no jail punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. In any case, it is clear from the rules referred to above, firstly, that none except the condemned prisoners can ordinarily be put in cellular confinement and a prisoner can be put in cellular confinement as a punishment for jail offence for the limited period provided and after regular medical check up as it is supposed to be a very hard punishment and it causes severe mental and physical torture to the man so confined and the confinement of the petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh "Rakesh" in such a cell for such a long length of time, i.e. from 24.7.1970 is unwarranted by the prescribed jail rules. It may be that the petitioner is a desperate type of man and had earlier succeeded in escaping from custody while he was being transferred from Chapra Jail to Gaya Jail and security measures are necessary but security measure by way of cellular or solitary confinement of the person can on no account be justified. 17 . Consequently it is directed that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Patna shall forthwith withdraw the petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh "Rakesh" from cellular confinement. 17 . Consequently it is directed that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Patna shall forthwith withdraw the petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh "Rakesh" from cellular confinement. He may however take such other precautionary and security measures against the petitioner as are provided in the Jail Manual for guarding and safe custody of the prisoners. WASIUDDIN, J. Petition allowed.