1 wp-3105-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3105 of 2010 Raju @ Ahmed Ismail Sayyed .. Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Anr .. Respondents. Mrs A.Z.Ansari, for the Petitioner. Ms M. H.Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. In this petition, broadly three allegations are made. Firstly, that the petitioner was brutally assaulted while in the jail some 2 wp-3105-10.doc time in June, 2010. Secondly, he was once again brutally assaulted by the officials of Nashik Central Prison in November, 2010. Lastly, the petitioner was kept in separate confinement for five days in January, 2010 and was released only to answer the nature’s call. In the context of the above allegations, we thought it appropriate to order inquiry into the mater by appointing J.M.F.C. to submit his report. Accordingly, J.M.F.C. Nashik inquired into the matter and submitted report dated 20-12-2010. 3. With regard to the first allegation, it has now transpired that the petitioner had never complained about any assault on him, when he was attended by Dr Prashant Amrut More in June, 2010. The statement of Dr More has been recorded by J.M.F.C. which indicates that the petitioner at no point of time made grievance about any assault on him by the Jail Authorities. The argument of the petitioner is that although J.M.F.C has referred to medical report maintained by Dr More the same do not form part of the record. This argument is devoid of merits, inasmuch as the 3 wp-3105-10.doc medical reports are annexed with the J.M.F.C. report as Annexure-H. The same are in consonance with the stand taken by Dr More that at the relevant time the petitioner had complained of tooth ache only. 4. That takes us to the second allegation made by the petitioner that he was brutally assaulted in November, 2010. With regard to this allegation, the J.M.F.C. has recorded the statements of all concerned persons, including that of the petitioner. The petitioner in his statement has disclosed that he was not assaulted by the officials of Nashik Central Prison in November, 2010. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner before the J.M.F.C. even this allegation does not survive for consideration. 5. The third allegation is about separate confinement of the petitioner for five days in January, 2010. With regard to this allegation, the J.M.F.C.has recorded statements amongst others of two prisoners who were in jail with the petitioner at the 4 wp-3105-10.doc relevant time. The said two prisoners have stated that no incident of separate confinement of Raju - petitioner in the month of January, 2010 had occurred. 6. The fact that the petitioner has reiterated his allegation in the statement given before the J.M.F.C. or affidavit before us does not take the matter. The allegations made by the petitioner have not been substantiated even in the Magisterial inquiry. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in any of the allegation. 7. Counsel for the petitioner, however, invited our attention to the Prison Manual which according to her mandates that a separate register with regard to accused kept in a separate or solitary confinement should be maintained. Whereas the Jailor has stated before the J.M.F.C. that no such register is maintained. The fact that no such register is maintained by the Jail Authorities cannot be the basis to presume that the petitioner was assaulted by the officials of the prison or was kept in the solitary confinement as is alleged. However, we have no difficulty in 5 wp-3105-10.doc accepting the argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the Jail Authorities be directed to maintain register regarding solitary confinement of any convict hereafter. We, accordingly direct the Jail Authorities to ensure that registers are maintained in consonance with the provisions of Prison Manual,if already not done. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of on the above terms. 9. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be transferred to some other jail. That is a matter which will have to be considered by the Appropriate Authority keeping in mind the provisions of extant Regulations, which are in vogue. The petitioner is free to move application to the Appropriate Authority which will be considered on its own merit in accordance with law. Order accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J) (A. M.KHANWILKAR,J)