Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 991 (PAT)

Satendra Sah v. State of Bihar

2008-07-18

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ application has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 1991 dated 27.3.2008 issued by the Inspector General of Prison, Bihar as contained in Annexure-2 to the application under which the petitioner has been ordered to be shifted from Sasaram Jail to Shahid Khudi Ram Bose Jail, Muzaffarpur for six months on the ground of administrative exigencies and jail security. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that order contained in Annexure 2 to the application is contrary to Section 29(3) read with Prisoners (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2003. It has further been argued that the transfer of the accused from one jail to another jail is not a proper remedy against his illegal activities specially when there is no evidence that the petitioner is a member of any extremist group. 4. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied on a decision of this Court given in the case of Md. Rais Khan @ Rais Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007(4) BBCJ 245 . 5. Separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 6. Learned State counsel submitted that in all 24 cases are pending against the petitioner. He further submitted that illegal activities of the petitioner compelled the State Government to take such drastic step against him in terms of Section 29(3) of the Prisoners (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2003. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner out of 24 cases some of them are pending for evidence and some of them are pending for commitment and charge. This Court in the decision (supra) relied upon by the petitioner has observed that the transfer amounts to infringement of fundamental right of speedy trial. Transferring the accused from one place to another is not a remedy against his illegal activities. 8. It is correct that transferring the accused from one place to other is not the remedy against his illegal activities. The authority can resort to other means at Sasaram itself to curve his activities. Admittedly no case is pending against the petitioner at Muzaffarpur. It may be pointed out here that the right of speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. The authority can resort to other means at Sasaram itself to curve his activities. Admittedly no case is pending against the petitioner at Muzaffarpur. It may be pointed out here that the right of speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. Certainly, due to non-production of accused at Sasaram the trial of all the cases pending against him has been held up. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 27.3.2008 contained in Memo No. 1991 (Annexure-2) passed by the Inspector General of Prison is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to send the petitioner to Sasaram Jail where the trial of all his cases are pending. If the petitioner is found involved in any criminal activites in future inside the jail the respondents will be at liberty to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions this applications stands disposed of.