Rohit Rana @Moi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.04.2026
Pronounced on: 15.07.2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38378/2025
ROHIT RANA @ MOI .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Surender Singh Hooda,
Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing
Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Aryam
Sachdeva and Mr.Abhinav Kr.
Arya, Advs. and ASI Anil
Kumar, Special Staff, Outer
North District for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
INTRODUCTION :
The present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“ BNSS ”] has been filed by the petitioner, an
undertrial prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar,
challenging,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 1 of 21
(i) the Transfer Order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the
Director General [“ DG ”] Prisons, Delhi;
(ii) the Notice dated 14.11.2025 issued by the Jail
Superintendent of Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli;
(iii) the Order dated 04.12.2025 passed by DG Prisons, Delhi,
and
(iv) Seeking directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing
and setting aside Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prison Rules,
2018 as ultra vires the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 and the
Prisoners Act, 1900; and
(v) Seeking a direction to transfer the petitioner to any high
security prison other than Central Jail No. 2, Tihar.
BRIEF FACTS:
1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, Mr. Rohit Rana
rd
@ Moi, was arrested on 3 March, 2020 in connection with FIR No.
401/2019, registered at Police Station Narela, under Sections 302/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ “IPC” ] and Section 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959, wherein Jitendra @ Gogi, Kuldeep @ Fajja and Kapil
Mann were also arrayed as co-accused. It is also the case of the
petitioner that since his arrest, he has been publicly associated with the
infamous Gogi Gang, and has been perceived to be its member.
2. He was thereafter remanded to judicial custody by the learned
th
Trial Court, vide order dated 14 March, 2020, was designated as a
High Risk Undertrial Prisoner, and was lodged in the High Risk Ward
of Central Jail No. 2, Tihar Jail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 2 of 21
th
3. On 11 February, 2023, the petitioner was shifted to Central Jail
No. 15, Mandoli, in the designated separate prison for High Security
Inmates.
st
4. On 31 October 2025, the petitioner was called by the
Superintendent, Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli and was informed that
he would be transferred to Central Jail No. 2, Tihar.
5. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the proposed transfer, and
apprehending danger to his life and personal safety from the various
rival gang members lodged in Central Jail No. 2, approached the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
th
[ “ASJ” ], on 04 November, 2025, with an application seeking, inter
alia , directions to keep the petitioner in Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli
and not to transfer him to Central Jail No. 2, Tihar.
th
6. Vide order dated 07 November, 2025, the learned ASJ directed
the Jail Superintendent to give the petitioner a notice of at least 15
working days, to obtain his written response and to consider the same
before arriving at any decision regarding his transfer from Central Jail
No. 15, Mandoli, to any other Jail.
7. The petitioner also preferred a parallel Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
3675/2025 before this Court, seeking similar reliefs as prayed before
the learned ASJ. The said petition was, however, dismissed by this
th
Court on 24 November, 2025, on account of concealment of the fact
of having filed a similar application before the learned ASJ.
th
8. In the meanwhile, on 14 November, 2025, the petitioner was
given a Notice regarding his transfer from Central Jail No. 15,
Mandoli to Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, in terms of the Order of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 3 of 21
th
Prison Headquarters dated 11 November, 2025. The petitioner was
also called upon to submit his response within 15 working days.
th
9. Subsequently, vide order dated 04 December, 2025, the
respondents rejected the petitioner’s representation. It was noted in the
said order that a number of punishments have been awarded to the
petitioner for recovery of mobile phones and other prohibited articles,
hanging curtains to block CCTV surveillance, etc. It was further noted
that a meeting chaired by the Additional Inspector General (Prisons)
was conducted on 03.11.2025, wherein, in view of the petitioner’s
involvement in illegal activities at Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli and
considering the need for transferring him to a prison with a better cell
phone jamming facility, it was decided to shift him to Central Jail No.
2, Tihar.
10. The petitioner then filed yet another Writ Petition, bearing
W.P.(Crl.) No. 3939/2025 before this Court, challenging the Transfer
th th
Order dated 11 November, 2025, Notice dated 14 November, 2025,
and Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. However, the same
was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition in the light of the
th
Status Report dated 08 December, 2025, noting rejection of the
petitioner’s representation seeking transfer to any other High Security
Jail except Central Jail No. 2, Tihar by the respondents.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER:
Threat to Life & Safety of the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 4 of 21
11.1 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is perceived to be associated with the Jitendra @ Gogi
Gang. Several members of the rival Neeraj Bawana Gang, namely
Neeraj Bawana @ Bali, Parvesh Mann, and Sandeep @ Dhilu are
presently lodged in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar and have animosity
towards the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that there is also
a long history of inter-gang violence between the two gangs and cited
several incidents of murders and attacks allegedly between the two
gangs. It was contended that the impugned transfer exposes the
petitioner to a grave and imminent risk of his life and personal safety,
and the same is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11.2 In this behalf, reliance was placed on a specific incident that is
th
said to have occurred on 17 March, 2026, between 3.00 pm – 4.00
pm, in the Video Conferencing Room of the prison, where, the
petitioner was allegedly exposed to one Sandeep @ Dhilu, allegedly a
member of the rival Neeraj Bawana gang, who is stated to have openly
threatened to kill the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner’s
apprehension of threat to his life is due to failure of the prison
authorities to isolate him from the rival gang inmates, despite being
aware of the existing gang rivalry.
Rule 1382 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 is ultra vires the Delhi
Prisons Act, 2000 and the Prisoners Act, 1900
12.1 It was contended that neither the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as, ‘Delhi Prisons Act’) nor the Prisoners Act,
1900 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Prisoners Act’), confers any power
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 5 of 21
upon the jail authorities, or specifically, upon the Inspector General
[ “IG” ] to transfer an undertrial prisoner from one prison to another.
12.2 It was submitted that Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018
(hereinafter referred to as, ‘Delhi Prison Rules’) is ultra vires the
provisions of the Delhi Prisons Act and Prisoners Act for travelling
beyond the scope of the enabling Act by delegating the power to the
IG to transfer undertrial prisoners from one prison to another. The
learned counsel submitted that the Delhi Prisons Act lacks any
enabling provision in support of Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prison Rules.
He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka & Anr. v. H. Ganesh Kamath & Ors. , (1983) 2 SCC 402,
and General Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. v. Dr. Subhash
Chandra Yadav & Anr. , (1988) 2 SCC 351, to submit that the rule-
making power conferred by an Act, does not enable the rule-making
authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the
enabling Act.
12.3 It was argued that the power for classification and separation of
prisoners conferred by Section 71(2)(xvii) of the Delhi Prisons Act
does not include the power to transfer prisoners, but only prescribes
for their segregation and division into different classes of prisoners.
The learned counsel submitted that the said provision would only
empower the respondents to classify the petitioner as a ‘high-risk
prisoner’ and keep him in isolation, and cannot be stretched so far as
to include the power of transfer.
12.4 It was therefore argued that the jail authorities have no power to
transfer an undertrial prisoner from one prison to another and the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 6 of 21
power is only vested in the Court which remanded the prisoner to
custody. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Saeed Sohail
Sheikh & Ors. , (2012) 13 SCC 192.
th
Violation of the Order dated 07 November, 2025, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge.
13.1 It was contended by the learned counsel that the notice dated
th
14 November, 2025 was merely informing the petitioner of his
transfer to Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, which had already been decided
th
by way of the Order dated 11 November, 2025. The same is said to
th
be in violation of the Order dated 07 November, 2025, whereby, the
learned ASJ directed the respondents to provide the petitioner a notice
of at least 15 working days in case of a future transfer, to provide a
written response, and directed them to consider the same before
arriving at any decision qua his transfer.
Alternate Submission:
14.1 Lastly, it was submitted that even assuming that the respondents
possessed the authority to transfer the petitioner, there was no rational
basis for shifting him specifically to Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, when
several other high security facilities are available in other jails.
14.2 It was therefore prayed that the impugned orders be set aside
and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to transfer the
petitioner to any other High Security Prison, other than Central Jail
No. 2, Tihar.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 7 of 21
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
Involvement of the petitioner in multiple illegal activities and
running a syndicate from Mandoli Jail.
15.1 It was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the
petitioner is a high-risk inmate, who is involved in as many as 19
cases, and whose conduct in Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli had been
highly unsatisfactory. He submitted that the petitioner was found
indulging in activities prejudicial to the prison discipline and security
while lodged there. It was submitted that the petitioner has been
awarded as many as nine punishments for repeated breaches of prison
discipline, including recovery of mobile phones, recovery of
prohibited articles, and hanging of clothes/curtains to block CCTV
surveillance. The petitioner was running a syndicate from Central Jail
No. 15, Mandoli and posed a genuine security concern. He submitted
that the impugned transfer of the petitioner was made to stop him from
running illegal activities and syndicates from inside the jail premises.
The decision to transfer is a purely administrative function
16.1 It was further submitted that the transfer, placement, and
segregation of prisoners, is a decision that falls squarely within the
exclusive domain of the prison administration. There are no
definitions of ‘gang’ or ‘anti-gang’ prisoners within Delhi Prisons.
The prison administration maintains High-Security Wards across
multiple jails, including Jail No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8/9, 10 & 15 and that the
placement of high-risk inmates in a particular ward is a matter of
professional assessment undertaken after considering threat
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 8 of 21
perception, security classification, inmate conduct, rivalries and
overall institutional requirements.
16.2 The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that there is no
vested or fundamental right with a prisoner for being lodged in one
jail to another, as the same falls within the domain of prison
administration and is subject to security considerations. The Courts
can only interfere where such decision is arbitrary or mala fide.
However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
any mala fide or arbitrariness in exercise of this power by the
respondents. In support, he placed reliance on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Noor Hasan
Gulam Hussain @ Bawa , 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 166; S.
Balamurugan & Ors. v. Inspector General of Prisons & Anr. , 1995
SCC OnLine Mad 393; and State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Vikash
Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary , (2025) 3 SCC 226.
16.3 It was also contended that the directions given by the learned
ASJ regarding 15 day notice for written representation, were also duly
complied by the respondents before transferring the petitioner to
Central Jail No. 2, Tihar.
The petitioner’s transfer is in compliance with relevant rules and
statutes:
17.1 It was submitted that the transfer was undertaken in exercise of
powers under Section 28 & 71 of Delhi Prisons Act and the Rules 664
(vii), 668, 1382, 1403 & 1421 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, and formed
part of a larger administrative exercise concerning several high-risk
inmates, and was not an isolated action directed against the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 9 of 21
alone. Further, Section 29 of the Prisoners Act empowers the State
Government to remove any prisoner from one prison to another within
the State.
17.2 It was submitted that Section 71(2)(xvii) of Delhi Prisons Act
deals with classification and separation of prisoners, and Section 28(6)
provides for keeping dangerous prisoners separately. Further, Rule
664(vii) of the Delhi Prison Rules relates to transfer of prisoners from
one prison to another on the grounds of security and expediency etc. It
was also submitted that Rule 1421 of the Delhi Prison Rules contained
in Chapter XXV, dealing with “High-Risk Prisoners”, empowers the
Superintendent to recommend the shifting of a high-risk prisoner, who
commits frequent breaches to the IG of Prisons, and Rule 668 of the
said Rules empowers the IG to make such transfers.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
18. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
19. “Prisons” is a State subject under Entry-4 in List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The management and
administration of prisons come under the purview of the State
Government. They maintain their own prison manuals, though the
Central Legislation establishes the baseline regulations. Accordingly,
the Delhi Prisons Act and the Delhi Prison Rules govern the
administration and management of prisons in Delhi.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged Rule 1382
of the Delhi Prison Rules as ultra vires the Parent Act, that is, the
Delhi Prisons Act and the Prisoners Act. The learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 10 of 21
petitioner submits that rules cannot travel beyond the scope of the
parent Act and should be within the scope of the rule-making
authority.
21. However, it is observed that the rules are an elongation and in
the purposeful implementation of the Parent Act. In order to be held
ultra vires the Parent Act, the impugned Rule has to specifically
derogate or transgress the authority of the parent Act. In the present
case, neither has happened, as the Parent Act, that is, the Delhi Prisons
Act, under Section 71 authorises the State Government to make rules
in respect to the matters described in Section 71(2), which includes the
power to make rules regarding classification and separation of a
prisoner. Hence, the Rules delegating to the prison administration the
power to transfer prisoners, have been framed in compliance with the
parent statute, that is the Delhi Prisons Act.
1
22. At this stage, it is relevant to look at Section 71 (2) of the Delhi
Prisons Act, which is reproduced as under:
“Section 71 – Powers of Government to
make Rules
(1) The Government may make rules generally
to carry out the Provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules
may provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:-
xxx
(viii) for the classification of prisons, and
description and construction of wards, cells
and other places of detention ;
xxx
(xvii) for the classification and the separation
1
The provision as published on the official website of Central Jail, (Govt of NCT of
Delhi), https://tiharprisons.delhi.gov.in/tiharprisons/acts-rules
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 11 of 21
of prisoner…”
23. This statutory framework is further reinforced by the Prisoners
Act. Section 3 of the Act obligates the officer in charge of a prison,
to receive and detain every prisoner committed to his custody until
he is lawfully discharged or removed in due course of law. Section
28 of the Delhi Prisons Act specifically provides for the “Separation
of Prisoners”. More importantly, Section 29(1) of the Prisoners Act
provides that “ The State Government may, by general or special
order, provide for the removal of any prisoner confined in a
prison.…” Section 29(2) further provides that “ Subject to the orders,
and under the control, of the State Government, the Inspector
General of Prisons may, in like manner, provide for the removal of
any prisoner confined as aforesaid in a prison in the State to any
other prison in the State .” These provisions unequivocally recognise
the statutory power of the prison administration to transfer prisoners
whenever warranted by administrative or security considerations.
24. A harmonious reading of Sections 28 and 71 of the Delhi
Prisons Act together with Sections 3 and 29 of the Prisoners Act
leaves no manner of doubt that the Legislature intended to confer
adequate powers upon the prison administration to classify, segregate
and transfer prisoners in the interest of prison security, discipline and
effective administration.
25. Rules 1382 and 1421 of the Delhi Prison Rules merely
operationalise the legislative policy embodied in the parent
enactments by prescribing the procedure governing the management
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 12 of 21
and transfer of high-risk prisoners. They neither create any
substantive power beyond the Act, nor are they inconsistent with the
provisions of either the Delhi Prisons Act or the Prisoners Act. On
the contrary, they are in furtherance of the object sought to be
achieved by the parent statutes. Consequently, the challenge to Rule
1382 as being ultra vires is devoid of merit and deserves to be
rejected.
26. Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prisons Rules provides for separation
and classification of prisoners as also their custody, and reads as
under:
“Transfer
1382. During an emergency or on
administrative grounds, the Inspector General
is authorized to transfer under trial prisoners
from one prison to another within territories of
Delhi. The prisoner shall be produced before
the court on the due date.”
27. Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prisons Rules provides the power to the
IG to transfer an undertrial prisoner from one prison to another and is
in consonance with the subject-matter of the parent Act. Insofar as the
authority of the IG to transfer the petitioner under the said Rule is in
challenge, the Delhi Prisons Act does not explicitly prohibit the IG
from transferring any prisoner. Rather, the said Act authorises the
State Government to frame Rules in this behalf.
28. In the absence of any established inconsistency with the parent
Act, Rule 1382 of the Delhi Prisons Rules enjoys a presumption of
validity.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 13 of 21
29. The petitioner’s argument that classification and separation
under Section 71(2)(xvii) of the Delhi Prison Act relate to segregation
within the same prison and excludes the power to transfer a prisoner,
is without merit and cannot be accepted.
30. Further, Rule 1421(I) of the Delhi Prisons Rules empowers the
Superintendent to recommend transfer of a High Risk Prisoner
involved in frequent breaches. The said Rule is not under challenge in
the present petition. Rule 1421 (I) of the Delhi Prisons Rules is
extracted as under:
“Punishment
1421. All high risk offenders can be punished
by the Superintendent in case of breach of
discipline and security of prison in the manner
set forth in Chapter of Prison Discipline of this
Manual. The Superintendent may take
appropriate legal action against such
prisoners and in case a high risk offender
commits an offence which is punishable under
any law in addition to being a prison offence,
appropriate criminal process may be initiated
against him by moving the local police station.
In addition to the major and minor
punishments provided in Chapter of prison
discipline:
I. If a high risk offender commits frequent
breaches, the Superintendent can recommend
his shifting to any other prison to the Inspector
General of Prisons…”
31. Further, Chapter IX of the Delhi Prison Rules, specifically
dealing with the “Transfer of Prisoners”, enumerates various reasons
for which a prisoner may be transferred. It provides that a prisoner
may be transferred from one prison to another on grounds of security,
expediency, etc.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 14 of 21
32. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was running a
syndicate from Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli and had been involved in
multiple breaches in prison, including possession of mobile phone and
blocking of CCTV cameras. Hence, the petitioner’s transfer on the
ground of security concerns is valid and derives power from the Delhi
Prisons Rules. The said Rule has also not been challenged by the
petitioner. Chapter IX, Rule 664(I) and (VII) is reproduced hereunder:
“Reasons and Circumstances for Transfer
664. Prisoners may be transferred from one prison
to another for the following reasons:
I. For custody and treatment in a suitable
institution in accordance with the classification
procedure/lodging policy.
xxx
VII. On grounds of security, expediency, etc…”
33. The petitioner’s reliance on Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra) to
contend that the jail authorities have no power to transfer an undertrial
prisoner from one prison to another is misplaced. The said judgment
was based on interpretation of Section 29 of the Prisoners Act and
Section 26 of the Prisons Act, 1894. The observations therein were
made in a case where no explicit power to transfer had been delegated
by the parent Act. Hence, the same is not applicable in the present
case.
34. Determining the place of imprisonment is an administrative
decision of the detaining authority, and in the absence of any mala fide
or arbitrariness, a Court would not interfere in such day-to-day
administrative decisions. A prisoner’s fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution is not absolute and is qualified by relevant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 15 of 21
Rules and reasonable restrictions. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vikash Tiwary (supra) observed as under:
16. Moreover, in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 3 SCC 284 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 705] , it was pointed out that
a convict or an undertrial who disobeys the
law of the land, cannot contend that it is not
permissible to transfer him from one jail to
another, because the Jail Manual does not
provide for it. The relevant portion is
reproduced below : (SCC pp. 292-93, para 23)
“23. Therefore, in our opinion, a convict or an
undertrial who disobeys the law of the land,
cannot contend that it is not permissible to
transfer him from one jail to another because
the Jail Manual does not provide for it. If the
factual situation requires the transfer of a
prisoner from one prison to another, be he a
convict or an undertrial, courts are not to be a
helpless bystander when the rule of law is
being challenged with impunity. The arms of
law are long enough to remedy the situation
even by transferring a prisoner from one
prison to another, that is by assuming that the
Jail Manual concerned does not provide such
a transfer. In our opinion, the argument of the
learned counsel, as noted above, undermines
the authority and majesty of law. The facts
narrated hereinabove clearly show that the
respondent has time and again flouted the law
even while he was in custody and sometimes
even when he was on bail. We must note
herein with all seriousness that the authorities
manning Beur jail and the doctors concerned
of Patna Medical College Hospital, for their
own reasons, either willingly or otherwise,
have enabled the respondent to flout the law.
In this process, we think the authorities
concerned, especially the authorities at Beur
Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to
control the illegal activities of the respondent.
Therefore, it is imperative that the respondent
be transferred outside Bihar.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 16 of 21
35. Thus, it is vivid that if circumstances necessitate the transfer of
a prisoner from one jail to another, it can be done by the authority
concerned.
36. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Geetinder Kaur v. State of
Punjab & Ors., 1985 SCC OnLine SC 348, has categorically held
that:
“3. …The place of detention is a matter for the
administrative choice of the detaining
authority, and a court would be justified in
interfering with that decision only if it was in
violation of any specific provision of the law
or was vitiated by arbitrary considerations
and mala fides…”
37. In the case of in State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Noor Hasan
Gulam Hussain (supra) , it was held that classification of the prisoners
and their placement in different prisons by the prison administration is
a relevant policy decision. The discretion and power to interfere by the
Courts in such matters does exist, yet it should be used very sparingly.
38. Similarly, in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 284, it was held that
the right of a prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution to be
lodged in a jail and general prohibition against his transfer to a
distantly located jail in the State or out of the State, is not absolute; it
is also subject to the amenability of the prisoner to the maintenance of
jail discipline. The relevant passage of the said decision reads as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 17 of 21
“21. The fundamental right of an undertrial
prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution is
not absolute. His right of visitation as also other
rights are provided in the Jail Manual. The
respondent as an undertrial prisoner was bound
to maintain the internal discipline of the jail.
Such a fundamental right is circumscribed by
the prison manual and other relevant statutes
imposing reasonable restrictions on such right.
The provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual or
other relevant statutes having not been declared
unconstitutional, the respondent was bound to
abide by such statutory rules.”
39. Hence, it is lucid that transfer of a prisoner from one prison to
another is purely an administrative decision, and hence, the same
cannot be interfered with by the Court, unless it is arbitrary and
contrary to law.
40. The decision to transfer the petitioner from one prison to
another was a policy decision, determined and based on various facts
and circumstances. The Courts must be slow in interfering with such
policy decisions. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to bring
on record any arbitrariness in the administrative decision taken by the
respondents. The impugned administrative decision of transfer was
taken with respect to multiple prisoners and does not single out the
petitioner. Hence, in the absence of any illegality or arbitrariness in
the decision of the respondents, we are not inclined to interfere with
the petitioner’s transfer to Central Jail No. 2, Tihar.
th
41. The transfer order dated 04 December, 2025, issued by the
respondents is a reasoned order, and was passed after considering the
response given by the petitioner opposing such transfer. Considering
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 18 of 21
the threat apprehension of the petitioner from his rival gang members,
instructions in the form of an Advisory regarding safe custody are also
said to have been issued by the Director General of Prisons to the Jail
Superintendent for regulating the movement, lodging, etc. of the
petitioner in the high security wards. The said advisory also provides
that “all necessary measures must be taken to ensure that rival
inmates/groups do not come in contact with each other under any
circumstance”. The said transfer order is, therefore, found to be in
th
compliance with the order dated 07 November, 2025, whereby the
learned ASJ directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s
response and grant him at least 15 working days to respond to the
proposed transfer. The record indicates that the petitioner was granted
an opportunity to respond and the said response was considered by
passing a reasoned rejection.
42. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that an incident
occurred in the Video Conferencing Room of the prison, where the
petitioner was exposed to a member of the rival Neeraj Bawana gang.
We do not find any merit in the same. In this regard, the CCTV
footage of the Video Conferencing Room placed on record, has been
examined by us. On an examination of the said CCTV footage, we
find that no material is discernible which would support the
petitioner's claim that any threat was extended to him by a rival gang
member. The footage does not reveal any physical altercation,
confrontation or any face-to-face encounter between the petitioner and
the inmate belonging to the rival group. On the contrary, the footage
indicates that the petitioner and the other inmates present in the Video
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 19 of 21
Conferencing Room remained under the supervision of prison staff
and no untoward incident took place.
43. With regard to the petitioner’s apprehension regarding the
lodging of rival gang members in the same prison being a threat to his
life, we are of the view that the same is without merit and based on
mere apprehensions. The petitioner is stated to be lodged in a High
Security Prison under the strict surveillance of the prison authorities.
Mere lodging of rival gang members in the same prison is not
sufficient to make out a case for transfer. Further, mere apprehension,
without reasonable, substantial and actual evidence of threat is
insufficient to challenge such transfer. Such apprehensions cannot be
entertained in the light of the respondent’s categorical undertaking that
the petitioner is lodged in a High Security Ward and adequate
measures are in place to ensure his safety.
44. The safety and security of an inmate is the responsibility of the
prison administration. The respondents are directed to ensure safe
custody of the petitioner in prison and take adequate steps to block
face-to-face access of the petitioner with the members of the rival
gangs. Needless to say that Jail Superintendent of Central Jail No. 2,
Tihar shall also be bound by the “Advisory regarding the safe custody
th
of High Risk Prisoner Rohit @ Moi” dated 04 December, 2025,
issued by the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar.
CONCLUSION:
45. We are satisfied that the transfer of the petitioner to Central Jail
No. 2, Tihar was based on administrative and security considerations
and cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide or unreasoned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 20 of 21
46. The decision falls within the power and responsibilities of the
prison administration and does not warrant any interference by this
Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
47. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that
there is no violation of any constitutional or legal right of the
petitioner.
48. The present Writ Petition, along with the pending application, is
accordingly dismissed.
49. There shall be no orders as to costs.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
JULY 15, 2026/MA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:59
W.P.(CRL) 4266/2025 Page 21 of 21