- (1.) THE present petitioner is lodged in Naini Central Jail in relation to Criminal Case No. 3 of 1994 pending before the designated court under the TADA Act at Kanpur Nagar with a charge for an offence under Sections 302/120-B, IPC, P. S. Cantt. , District Al lahabad. A co-accused, K. K. Saini, has been charged under Section 3 (1) of the TADA Act as also under Section 302, IPC. The petitioner was apprehended at Sin gapore and was brought to India after an extradition proceeding in 1995. For cer tain period he was detained in Tihar Jail, New Delhi, for another case and he had been transferred to Naini Central Jail, Al lahabad, in January, 1997.
(2.) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that he is being detained as an ordinary prisoner and was lodged in a cell with the co-accused, K. K. Saini, without any freedom to move to any of the wards out side the cell. It was alleged that while in Tihar Jail, the petitioner was given 'b' class status under Rule 38 of the Delhi Jail Manual. He was, however, denied the su perior class facility in Naini Central Jail. He asserted that his status was different from the other undertrial prisoners in the jail and for him the provisions of Interna tional I aw and the law on extradition would be applicable. He referred to the order of extradition as per Annexure T to the writ petition. The petitioner further asserted that he had never been convicted in any criminal case till date. He came from a respectable family, his father being an En gineer and brother an officer in the Indian Army. The petitioner himself is a Law Graduate. It is stated that he moved an application before the State Government through the District Magistrate, Al lahabad, in July, 1997. The representation was not decided and the petitioner moved a writ petition before the High Court for grant of superior class status and the High Court directed in the said Writ Petition No. 41997 of 1997 that the representation be decided within six weeks. The order of the High Court is annexed at Annexure '6' to the writ petition. It was further asserted that the District Magistrate, without ap plication of his mind, recorded an order dated 31-12-1997 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for the status of superior class prisoner. This order was depicted as arbitrary and malafide. The petitioner also put forward a grievance that he was languishing in jail in solitary confinement and no one was al lowed to visit his cell and he has not even allowed to leave the cell. He was also been deprived of fundamental rights guaran teed under Article 21 of the Constitution, although he was never convicted of any prison offence. He made a prayer for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Dis trict Magistrate dated 31 -12-1997 and for a writ of mandamus to grant superior class, and a further direction for not being put up in solitary confinement.
(3.) THROUGH a supplementary af fidavit, the petitioner added that he was not given the opportunity to meet anybody his counsel and that too after written per mission of the District Magistrate which usually took an inordinate length of time. His relatives were also not allowed to see him. Even the Counsel were allowed to see him only in presence of Deputy Jailor and Inspector of Local Intelligence, which was violative of the provisions of Section 40 of the Prisons Act, 1894. He alleged further that although other undertrial prisoners in the jail were allowed to watch Television (in short 'tv. '), but the facility was denied to him. He asserted in this supplementary affidavit that he was in cellular confine ment, which could be awarded only as a measure of punishment. The respondents filed counter as well as supplementary counter-affidavits and to that a rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner asserting, however, no new fact.;