IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1043 of 2007 Pintu Mahto @ Ranjeet Kumar son of Late Brij Mahto @ Brij Nandan Mahto, resident of Village- Mohawat, P.S. Ariari (Kasar), District Sheikhpura …Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt.of Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Prison, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Jail, Sheikhpura 5. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura 6. The Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura 7. The Sub Divisional Officere, Sheikhpura 8. The Jailor, Sheikhpura Jail, Sheikhpura …Respondents ----------- 5 5.3.2009 In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in keeping him in jail since 2007 though he is under trial prisoner. He further prays for directing the respondents to allow his family members and family friends to meet him at least twice a week. The case of the petitioner is shorn of specific details and facts which need to have been pleaded in the writ petition. He has merely stated in the writ petition that he is an accused in Ariari P.S. Case No.36 of 2006 dated 10.7.2006 and has subsequently been remanded in other case also. He submits that he is under trial prisoner and not convicted in any other case as yet. He is suffering from epilepsy since long. However, the authorities have confined him in Cell since 2007. The relevant detail of the case appears from two counter affidavits; one filed on behalf of respondent no.6 and the other filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 8. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 that petitioner is an 2 accused in large number of cases. List of 22 of such cases has been detailed in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is an accused in Nawada Jail break case registered as Nawada Town P.S. Case No.298 of 2001. Respondent nos.3 to 8 in the separate counter affidavit has also stated the aforesaid facts regarding involvement of the petitioner in number of cases. It has been stated that the petitioner is an accused in Nawada Jail break Case in which two jail wardens were killed and one was injured. The petitioner too had escaped from the Nawada jail and subsequently nabbed. It is submitted that the petitioner is confined to cell by order of I.G. Prison vide letter no.723 dated 30.1.2008 for a period of three months under Rule 693B. It has been stated in the letter that it is necessary to keep the petitioner in Cell as he has already escaped from jail once and there is all possibility that he may try to escape once again. In the affidavit it has been stated that all the basic facilities are being provided to the petitioner as admissible under the Jail Manual. The State has denied the allegation that the family members and friends are not being permitted to meet the petitioner. In support of their contention, the respondents have annexed a copy of the visitor’s register as Annexure-C to show that the family members and others are being allowed to meet him. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per Rule 693B of Jail Manual the Jail Superintendent can confined a prisoner in Cell for a period of one month and with approval of I.G.(Prison) 3 KHAN for a longer period. The issue before this court is whether the petitioner could be continued in Cell for a period longer than one ordered by the I.G.(Prison) vide memo no.723 dated 30.1.2008. To reiterate the I.G. Prison by the aforesaid letter had granted approval for keeping the prisoner in Cell for a period of three months only. In such situation, the authorities could not have kept the petitioner in Cell beyond 30.4.2008. Thus, on this score alone the continuance of the petitioner in Cell is contrary to the provisions of the Jail Manual and as such this court directs the respondents to remove the petitioner from the Cell and be kept in appropriate ward as per Jail Manual. It will be open to the authorities to strengthen security measures. However, this order will not preclude the authorities concerned from invoking and exercising relevant provisions of the Jail Manual or the Prisons Act for confining the petitioner in Cell if subsequent conduct of the petitioner warrants so. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)