LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.782 OF 2004 ----- Against the judgment dated 28.07.2004 passed in C.W.J.c. No. 1825 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge. --- Urmila Devi, wife of Sri Ram Asrey Pd. Singh, resident of village Ghostawan, P.S. Silao, District Nalanda, at present residing at Janki Niwas, Bhaiya Khatal Mohalla, P.S. Dhanbad Town, Distt. Dhanbad --- Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Jail Superintendent, Bihar Sharif Jail, Nalanda at Bihar Shariff --- Respondents. ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. For the State: Mr. Fakruddin, A.C. to S.C. 4. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA S.K.Katriar,J.: The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1825 of 2000 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.07.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the petitioner’s prayer for a direction to the authorities to grant compensation due to murder of her son while in police custody in the court premises, has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu 2 Kumar Singh, the petitioner’s son, was an accused in Silao P.S. Case No. 283 of 1998, was on judicial remand, and lodged in Biharsharif Jail. He had to be produced in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, on 01.12.1999, and for that purpose he was brought to the court. He was produced in the court of learned Magistrate and thereafter he was being transferred to the lock-up. On way to the lock-up, he was shot dead by criminals in the veramdah of the court premises. It was registered as Biharsharif P.S. Case No. 472 of 1999, under the provisions of section 302 of the India Penal Code, read with section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Relying on rule 801A of the Bihar Jail Manual, which is reproduced hereinbelow, the appellant seeks compensation from the State Government:- 801A.- The responsibility for the safety of prisoners under escort will rest with the police. The police shall be responsible for deciding what precautions in the way of fetters, accommodations, etc., shall be provided. 3.1 He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera vrs. State of Orissa and others, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1960. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s son was in police custody and, therefore, the entire responsibility was on the police to ensure his full protection, safety, and security. Therefore, reasonable amount of compensation may be 3 paid to the appellant who is his heir and legal representative, and has also become old. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge has observed that there is no allegation against the police that they were negligent in providing security to appellant’s son. There is also no allegation that he died while in custody on account of police atrocities. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, concluded that the appellant was perhaps the victim of the general law and order situation in the State, and also because of his criminal antecedents. We entirely agree with the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Birendra Prasad Verma,J. : I agree. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 23rd September, 2010 BTiwary/N.A.F.R. ( S . K. Katriar, J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)