HUSSAINARAKHATOON IV Vs. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition again comes up for hearing before us pursuant to the directions given by us on 26th February, 1979 and today three additional counter-affidavits have been Sled on behalf of the respondents: one by Mrinmaya Choudhri, Assistant Inspector General of Prisons; the other by Bageshwari Prasad Pande, Superintendent of the Patna Central Jail and the third by Pradip Kumar Ganguly, Superintendent of the Muzaffarpur Central Jail. Mrinmaya Choudhri has in his affidavit given particulars of the under-trial prisoners in 48 jails in the State of Bihar in addition to the particulars of the under-trial prisoners in 17 jails already submitted on 26th February, 1979. We directed the State of Bihar by our order dated 26th February, 1979 Hussainara Khotoon v. Home Secretary, 1979 CrLJ 1036 to file a revised chart showing a yearwise breakup of the under-trial prisoners after making a division into two broad categories viz. minor offences and major offences but this direction has not yet been carried out by the State of Bihar: Mrinmaya Choudhri has, however, assured us in his affidavit that several steps regarding the different directions given by the court are being promptly implemented but due to shortage of time it has not been possible to complete the same by 3rd March, 1979. We direct that the State of Bihar will file within three weeks from today a revised chart in regard to the under-trial prisoners in all the 65 jails in a manner which would clearly show yearwise as to what is the date from which each of them is in jail after making a broad division into two categories of minor offences and major offences. We are glad to note that so far as women under "protective custody" are concerned, the State has assured us in the affidavit of Mrinmaya Choudhri that necessary steps for transferring women under 'protective custody' in jails to the institutions run by the welfare department, have been taken and directions to that effect are issued by the Government. We hope and trust that this direction given by us in our earlier order dated 26th February, 1979 will be carried out by Government and compliance report submitted to us within the prescribed time.

(2.) Though we directed the State of Bihar by our order dated 26th February, 1979 to intimate to the court by a proper affidavit to be filed on or before 3rd March, 1979 whether the under-trial prisoners whose particulars were given to the counter-affidavit filed on 26th February, 1979 were periodically produced before the Magistrates in compliance with the proviso to Section 167(2), we find that the only averment made by Bageshwari Pd. Pande in Ms affidavit in response to this direction is that petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 confined in the Patna Central Jail prior to their release were regularly produced before the courts 'as and when required by the courts'. This averment does not at all constitute compliance with the direction given by us, We would like to know from the State of Bihar in a proper affidavit to be filed within two weeks from today whether the under-trial prisoners who were directed to be released by us on their personal bond were periodically produced before the Magistrate in compliance with the requirement of the proviso to Section 167(2). We would suggest that the State should furnish to this Court the dates on which these under-trial prisoners were remanded to judicial custody from time to time by the Magistrates, so that we can satisfy ourselves that the requirement of the proviso was complied with.

(3.) We also find an averment in the affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Ganguly that petitioners Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 who were previously confined in the Muzaffarpur Central Jail prior to their release were regularly produced before the Court 'as and when required by the courts'. This averment, as we have pointed out, is wholly unsatisfactory and it does not inform the Court as to what were the dates on which these under-trial prisoners were remand-ed from time to time by the Magistrates. It is only if these particulars are furnished to us that we can satisfy ourselves in regard to compliance with the requirement of the proviso to Section 167(2) and we would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to furnish these particulars to us in an affidavit to be filed with-in two weeks from today.