DILLIP NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by a prisoner lodged in Central Jail, Berhampur. He has approached this Court complaining that he has been kept in solitary confinement and in fetters and that this violates his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that he is changing ; that he has met a spiritual adviser who used to visit the Central jail, Berhampur; that he is now writing down his thoughts and that he is in the process of reformation. Though approaches had been made to the National Human Rights Commission and to the Governor of Orissa to get the fetters placed on him removed, his condition has not changed, he being still kept in confinement in fetters. He prays that the authorities may be directed to remove the fetters while keeping him in prison.

(2.) MEANWHILE , a petition sent to the Chief Justice by the petitioner herein was also forwarded to this Court by the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Berhampur (Welfare Services - Male Section). Therein also the petitioner has prayed for removal of the fetters. In his communication forwarding that petition, the Senior, Superintendent has stated that the petitioner, a life convict, was admitted to jail as an under -trial prisoner on 5.7.1996. He was convicted on 26.4.1997 to rigorous imprisonment for one year and one month under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, he was convicted in three other cases, in one he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years, in the second, rigorous imprisonment for life for a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in the third, rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months for a conviction under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further reported that the petitioner had escaped from jail custody on the night of 17.10.1997 by breaking the cage -latrine attached to the Ward wherein he was confined. The petitioner was involved in as many as 40 cases in the districts of Ganjam and Koraput including heinous crimes like murder, dacoity and burglary. He has furnished the details of 21 cases against the petitioners which had been disposed of by the various Courts and a further list of 19 cases, which are pending in differents Courts. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was being kept in solitary confinement since he was ordered to be put in a separate cell considering his conduct and behavior, by the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Khallikote. A copy of the order dated 20.7.1998 passed by the Magistrate was also enclosed. He also produced the extract of an order dated 29.7.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Kodala wherein the learned Magistrate after referring to the relevant decision of the Supreme Court, empowered by his order the jail authority" to impose link fetters" on the petitioner and another convict detained in the Circle Jail, Berhampur. The Superintendent has also forwarded a copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum - Assistant Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.7 of 1997 dated 19.7.2002, allowing the prayer of the prosecution to keep the petitioner in fetters in the larger interests of the society, after taking note of the guidelines set, by the Supreme Court. We may notice here that the existence of these orders are not disclosed and these facts are not referred to in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not just and proper to keep the petitioner in fetters for such unduly long time and that this was a case where interference by this Court was warranted. The Additional Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the jail authorities submitted that the petitioner was a dangerous prisoner involved in heinous crimes and accused in 40 cases ; that he had once escaped from the prison; that it was dangerous to allow him to mingle with other prisoners ; and that it was necessary to keep him in fetters so that he could be effectively contained. He submitted that in the light of the judicial orders passed in this case, the restrictions placed on the petitioner were justified.