Prisoner transfer is warranted to protect an inmate’s safety after an assault within jail.

The petitioner, an inmate at Central Jail, Bathinda, invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking protection against alleged custodial excesses and threats to his life and physical integrity, and requesting an impartial investigation into the conduct of the concerned jail officials

He alleged that, on 30 July 2022, five or six unidentified persons entered his barrack and threatened him and another inmate.

The State disputed this version and relied on an affidavit of the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, stating that the petitioner had instead been involved in an altercation with co-inmates Joginder Singh Sammi and Palvinder Pinda, during which the petitioner was assaulted with a broken window strap.

The authorities stated that the inmates were separated, the co-inmates were shifted to another high-security zone, and FIR No. 108 dated 30 July 2022 was registered under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC and Section 52 of the Prisons Act, 1894.

The petitioner sought transfer to another jail to prevent any recurrence and to ensure his safety.

1. Whether the affidavit filed by the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, categorically denied the occurrence, or merely disputed the petitioner’s account of the manner in which it occurred?

2. Whether, in view of the assault or altercation within the high-security prison premises and the apprehension of recurrence, the petitioner should be shifted from Central Jail, Bathinda to another appropriate jail to safeguard his life, liberty and security?

3. Whether directions were warranted for an independent investigation and suspension of the concerned jail officials pending investigation?

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to protect the petitioner’s life, personal liberty and physical security during incarceration.

It applied the principle that prison authorities have a duty to safeguard inmates and that prison conditions must not expose a prisoner to avoidable threats or recurrence of violence.

The Court also considered the legal significance of FIR No. 108 registered under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC and Section 52 of the Prisons Act, 1894, as evidence that appropriate legal action had followed the incident.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s characterization of the affidavit as a categorical denial of the incident.

It distinguished between denying that an occurrence took place and disputing the precise manner in which it occurred: the affidavit accepted that an altercation and assault had taken place, while presenting the jail authorities’ version of the circumstances.

The registration of an FIR and the fact that the petitioner had been assaulted inside the high-security prison established a sufficient basis for concern regarding continued confinement in the same environment, particularly because animosity and a risk of recurrence could not be ruled out.

Without adjudicating the culpability of any individual or expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court treated the petitioner’s safety and personal liberty as the paramount considerations and found transfer to another jail to be a prudent preventive measure.

Considering the assault within the prison, the resulting apprehension of recurrence, and the State’s own registration of an FIR, the Court directed the competent authorities to shift the petitioner from Central Jail, Bathinda to any other appropriate jail in accordance with the applicable rules and administrative requirements, so as to ensure his safety and security and protect his life and liberty during incarceration.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.