https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?

viewkey=56917829

https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1262225372

https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=207029959
 PROJECT REPORT
ON
Scope of chief judicial magistrate and
chief metroplitan magistrate:a study of
comparative analysis

SUBMITTED TO:

Mrs. Shreejaya R. Patil

(Faculty Comparative Criminal Procedure, Hons.-I)

SUBMITTED BY:

Amitesh Tirkey
B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.)
Roll no: - 25
Semester -VII
Sec. - ‘C’
 Date of Submission:- 26/9/2016

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

 4

Certificate of Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work entitled "Prison System in India" submitted to HNLU,
Raipur, is record of an original work done by me under the knowledgeable guidance of Mrs.
Shreejaya R. Patil, Faculty Member, HNLU, Raipur.

-Amitesh Tirkey
B. A. L. L. B. (Hons.)

Semester- VII
 3

Acknowledgements

First & foremost, I take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Shreejaya R. Patil, Faculty,
Comparative Criminal Procedure (Hons.-I), HNLU, for allotting me this challenging topic to
work on. She has been very kind in providing inputs for this work, by way of suggestions and
by giving her very precious time for some discussion and providing me resource of her vast
knowledge of the subject which helped me to look at the topic in its very broad sense also to
look at some of the very narrow concepts by expertise view. Therefore she proved to be a
database in making this project. Hence I would like to thank her.

I would also like to thank my dear colleagues and friends in the University, who have helped
me with ideas about this work and also a source for constant motivation and hence they were
a guiding force to me in making of this project. Last, but not the least I thank the University
Administration for equipping the University with such good library and IT lab.

My special thanks to library staff and IT staff for equipping me with the necessary books and
data from the website.

I would also like to thank the hostel staff for providing me a healthy and clean environment
that provided me a great concentration level.

Amitesh Tirkey
Roll no: 25
Semester VII
 4

Table of Contents
 Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2
 Acknowledgments ----------------------------------------------------------- Page 3
 Abbreviations Used ----------------------------------------------------------Page 5
 Objective ----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 6
 Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------Page 6
 Statutes Used ------------------------------------------------------------------Page 6
 Rationale -----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 6
 Data Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------Page 6
 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------Page 7
 Review of Literature ------------------------------------------------------------Page 8
 Chapter I -------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 9
History of Prison System
 Chapter II ----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 13
Prison system in Ancient India
 Chapter III ----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 15
Prison system in Medieval India
 Chapter IV ----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 16
Prison system in Modern India
 Chapter V -----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 19
Types of Prison
 Chapter VI ----------------------------------------------------------------------Page 23
Irregularities in Prison
 Chapter VII ---------------------------------------------------------------------Page 25
Theories of Punishment
 Chapter VIII ---------------------------------------------------------------------Page 27
Rights of Prisoner
 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 33
 Bibliography ---------------------------------------------------------------------Page 34
 Cases referred --------------------------------------------------------------------Page 34
 Webliography --------------------------------------------------------------------Page 35
 5

Abbreviations Used

o acc. - Accessed
o AM - After Meridian
o Crl - Criminal
o Ed. - Edition
o esp. - Especial(ly)
o etc. - Et-Cetera
o i.e. - That is
o IST - Indian Standard Time
o no. - Number
o Pg. - Page
o S. - Section
 6

Objective
The basic objective behind this project is to study and critically understand the prison
system adopted in India.

Methodology

The project is descriptive in manner. The notions of the project are completely related
to speculative study. The source of data for this project is secondary in nature i.e. including
books, articles, journals and online resources.

Statutes Used

 Prisons Act, 1894.

 India Prisons Act of 1870.

 Government of India Act of 1919.

Rationale

Prisons in India can be regarded as a separate living hell in itself. The conditions of
Indian prisons are very bad, as there is no proper hygiene, not even the least required
facilities of inmates, which most of the times result in even death of some of them.
Therefore, it is necessary to know about such irregularities and conditions of Prisons of
India, to have a better idea about the people living there, and also to know the rights of
prisoners.

Data Analysis

Mostly Secondary Sources of Data are used in these making of this project which mostly
includes books and Articles from Web. Some Primary Sources of Data, meaning the
Statutes mentioned in this page have also been used wherever they were felt necessary.
 7

INTRODUCTION

The word ‘Prison’ and ‘Goal’ derive from the Latin words which mean respectively to
“Seize” and “cage”. The oxford English Dictionary defines prison as, “A place properly
arranged and equipped for the reception of persons who by legal process are committed to it
for safe custody while awaiting trial or punishment”1.
According to the Government of India Prisons Act of 1870,‘Prison’ meant any goal or
penitentiary and includes the airing grounds or other grounds or buildings occupied for the
use of the prison. Prison means any jail or place used permanently or temporarily under the
general or special orders of a Local Government for the detention of prisoner. The
Encyclopedia Britannica defines, ‘prison as an institution for the confinement of persons
convicted of major crimes or felonies’2.
Prison traditionally defined as a place in which persons are kept in custody pending
trial or in which they are confined as punishment after conviction. The word prison means
different things to different people. To the law abiding it is a place where the criminals end
up. To the criminal it may be a vague hazard or an unavoidable indignity. To the social
inadequate it may be a shelter. To some isolated individuals it may be the only place where
they can find some semblance of championship. To a prison officer it is his place of work. To
the psychologist it is a career in studying behavior. But to thousands of people, an experience
which slows up time, which crows them together, sets them apart and changes the course of
their lives.
Three phases may be distinguished in the history of prisons in general. During the
first, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century, penal institutions were chiefly
dungeons of detention rooms in secure parts of castles or city, in which prisoners awaiting
trial or execution of sentences were kept. The second phase was one of experimentation with
imprisonment a form of punishment for certain types of offenders, mostly, Juveniles. The
third phase was universal adaptation of imprisonment as a substitute for all capital
punishments. Prisons in the shape of dungeons had existed from the time immemorial in all
the countries of the world. Prison sentence is a specific punishment and is relatively recent
origin. The prison as we know it now came into existence largely as an interim house of
detention of an offender pending trial and punishment.

1
The oxford English Dictionary, Vol – VIII, P.1385.
2
Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol – 9, P.710
 8

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature Review is the documentation of a comprehensive review of the published and

unpublished work from secondary sources of data in the areas of specific interest to the
researcher. It is an extensive survey of all available past studies relevant to the field of
investigation. It gives us knowledge about what others have found out in the related field of
study and how they have done so.

After an extensive survey of available past studies relevant to the field of investigation, it has
been tried to accumulate the knowledge about what others have found out in the related field of
study and how they have done so. They have helped immensely in gaining background
knowledge of the research topic, in identifying the concepts relating to it, potential
relationships between them and identifying appropriate methodology, research design, methods
of measuring concepts and techniques of analysis, and also in identifying data sources used by
other researchers.

The following literature has helped me in preparing of this research project-

 A Mohanty and Narayan Hazare, ‘Indian Prison system’

 VasudevUpadhya, ‘A study of Hindu Criminology’
 Sharma M.P., Recent experiments in local self-government in India
 Basham, ‘Wonder that was India’
 Dr.Basu Durga Das, Introduction to the Constitution of India
 KVR Aiyanger, “Some aspects of Ancient Indian Polity”
 UN global report on Crime and Justice, 1999
 Paranjape, Prof. N. V., Criminology and Penology with Victimology
 B.D. Sharma, Police and Criminal Justice Administration in India
 9

CHAPTER I
HISTORY OF PRISON SYSTEM

PRISION IN PAUL’S WORLD3

Prisons existed long before the time of Paul. In the wedge shaped script of ancient
Assyria, there was a symbol for prison, a combination meaning "house of darkness." During
the Golden Age of Socrates and Plato, some four to five hundred years before Christ, the
prison in Athens was called "The People's Thing." Excavations have uncovered "The People's
Thing," a building facing the civic center. Measuring one hundred thirty-two feet by fifty-five
feet, this prison had eight square cells, including a wash room, open off a central corridor. An
abandoned cistern still holds clay medicine pots of a suitable size for a fatal dose of hemlock
the end of Socrates and many other Athenian prisoners. In much of the ancient world, judges
did not sentence offenders to serve time in prison. Prisons were holding cells for the accused
awaiting trial or for the condemned awaiting punishment. Mosaic law prescribed no penalty
that included imprisonment. Joseph languished in an Egyptian prison while other prisoners
were released for judgment. The Philistines blinded and imprisoned Samson so they could
keep him as a showpiece of their mastery: Being kept alive in that condition was a greater
and more humiliating punishment than death. Indecisive King Zedekiah threw Jeremiah into
the dungeon during time of war, a reflection of the king's unwillingness either to execute or to
free the prisoner. The psalmist prays for God's help for prisoners; and the parallel thought of
the Hebrew poem shows that prisoners, often neglected while awaiting further official action,
are those doomed to die (Psalm 79:11).
In the days of the Old Testament, then, imprisonment was not typically a punishment.
Prisons were populated mainly by those awaiting trial however long that wait might be and
by those whose sentence had yet to be carried out.

ANCIENT TIME
The beginning of prisons can be traced back to the rise of the state as a form of social
organization. Corresponding with the advent of the state was the development of written
language, which enabled the creation of formalized legal codes as official guidelines for
society. The most well known of these early legal codes is the Code of Hammurabi, written in
Babylon around 1750 BC. The penalties for violations of the laws in Hammurabi's Code were

3
http://www.mpumc.org/uploads/file/Prisons%20in%20Paul.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 10

almost exclusively centered on the concept of lex talionis ("the law of retaliation") where
people were punished as a form of vengeance, often by the victims themselves. This notion of
punishment as vengeance or retaliation can also be found in many other legal codes from
early civilizations, including the ancient Sumerian codes, the Indian Manama Dharma Astra,
the Hermes Trismegistus of Egypt, and the Mosaic Code4. A common punishment in Early
Modern Europe was to be made a galley slave. The galley pictured here belonged to the
Mediterranean fleet of Louis XIV, c. 1694.
Some Ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato, began to develop ideas of using
punishment to reform offenders instead of simply using it as retribution. Imprisonment as a
penalty was used initially for those who could not afford to pay their fines. Eventually, since
impoverished Athenians could not pay their fines, leading to indefinite periods of
imprisonment, time limits were set instead5. The prison in Ancient Athens was known as the
desmoterion ("place of chains").
The Romans were among the first to use prisons as a form of punishment, rather than
simply for detention. A variety of existing structures were used to house prisoners, such as
metal cages, basements of public buildings, and quarries. One of the most notable Roman
prisons was the Mamertine Prison, established around 640 B.C. by Ancus Marcius. The
Mamertime Prison was located within a sewer system beneath ancient Rome, and contained a
large network of dungeons where prisoners were held in squalid conditions, contaminated
with human waste. Forced labor on public works projects was also a common form of
punishment. In many cases, citizens were sentenced to slavery, often in ergastula (a primitive
form of prison where unruly slaves were chained to workbenches and performed hard
labour).

MEDIEVAL PERIOD
During the Middle Ages in Europe, castles, fortresses, and the basements of public
buildings were often used as makeshift prisons. The possession of the right and the capability
to imprison citizens, however, granted an air of legitimacy to officials at all levels of
government, from kings to regional courts to city councils; and the ability to have someone
imprisoned or killed served as a signifier of who in society possessed power or authority over

4
Welch Michael , A Social History of Punishment and Corrections. Corrections: A Critical Approach.
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-281723-2. (2004)
5
Allen, Danielle S. ,Punishment in Ancient Athens. Harvard University, Center for Hellenic Studies.
http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=1192 [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 11

others6. Another common punishment was sentencing people to galley slavery where they
were chained together in the bottoms of ships and forced to row on naval or merchant vessels.
However, the concept of the modern prison largely remained unknown until the early
19th-century. Punishment usually consisted of physical forms of punishment, including
capital punishment, mutilation, and whipping, branding, and non-physical punishments, such
as public shaming rituals like the stocks7. From the Middle Ages up to the 16th and 17th
centuries in Europe, imprisonment was rarely used as a punishment in its own right, and
prisons were mainly to hold those awaiting trial and convicts awaiting punishment.
However, an important innovation at the time was the Bridewell House of
Corrections, located at Bridewell Palace in London, which resulted in the building of other
houses of corrections. These houses held mostly petty offenders, vagrants, and the disorderly
local poor. In these facilities, inmates were given jobs, and through prison labor they were
taught how to work for a living. By the end of the 17th century, houses of correction were
absorbed into local prison systems under the control of the local justice of the peace8.

MODERN ERA
During the 18th century, popular resistance to public execution and torture became
more widespread both in Europe and in the United States. In particular, the death penalty for
petty crimes such as theft was proving increasingly unpopular with the public, and many
jurors were refusing to convict defendants of petty crimes when they knew they would be
sentenced to death. Rulers began looking for means to punish and control their subjects in a
way that did not cause people to associate them with spectacles of tyrannical and sadistic
violence. They developed systems of mass incarceration, often with hard labour, as a
solution9. The prison reform movement that arose at this time was heavily influenced by two
somewhat contradictory philosophies. The first was based in Enlightenment ideas of
utilitarianism and rationalism, and suggested that prisons should simply be used as a more

6
http://books.google.com/books?id=BxmTcMMfLpIC&pg=PA285 [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
Turning, Patricia (2012). "Competition for the Prisoner's Body: Wardens and Jailers in Fourteenth-Century
Southern France". In Classen, Albrecht & Scarborough, Connie. Crime and Punishment in the Middle Ages and
Early Modern Age: Mental-Historical Investigations of Basic Human Problems and Social Responses. Walter
de Gruyter. Pg. 285. ISBN 978-3-11-029458-3.
7
http://books.google.com/books?id=bwvH5ce94eIC&pg=PA44 [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
Spierenburg, Peter (1998). "The Body and The State: Early Modern Europe". In Morris, Norval & Rothman,
David J. The Oxford History of the Prison: the Practice of Punishment in Western Society. Oxford University
Press. p. 44. ISBN 9780195118148.
8
http://www.howardleague.org/history-of-prison-system/ [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
9
http://books.google.com/books?id=ajwunh3qA2gC&pg=PA216 [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
Kann, Mark E. (2005). "Concealing Punishment". Punishment, Prisons, and Patriarchy: Liberty and Power in
the Early American Republic. NYU Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-8147-4783-4.
 12

effective substitute for public corporal punishments such as whipping, hanging, etc. This
theory, often referred to as deterrence, claims that the primary purpose of prisons is to be so
harsh and terrifying that they deter people from committing crime out of fear of going to
prison. The second theory, which saw prisons as a form of rehabilitation or moral reform, was
based on religious ideas that equated crime with sin, and saw prisons as a place to instruct
prisoners in Christian morality, obedience and proper behavior. These later reformers
believed that prisons could be constructed as humane institutions of moral instruction, and
that prisoners' behavior could be "corrected" so that when they were released, they would be
model members of society10.
The age of modern prisons that we know today started with the several prison reforms
in 19th century England. During that time prisoners started receiving more care, concept of
rehabilitation was introduced and governments around the world (especially in UK and US)
started reconsidering their views on solitary confinement (which was primary source of the
increased numbers of insane, suicidal and catatonic prisoners). Wars that engulfed the world
in the beginning of 20th century brought the formation of large amounts of war prison camps
and concentration camps. Most famous examples of those types of prisons happened during
World War 2, when Nazi government formed over 300 detention centers in which political
opponents, Jews, gypsies, criminals and others were detained without judicial process.
Majority of them was eventually killed on an unprecedented massive scale that is today
estimated to be between 11 and 17 million people.
During the end of 20th century, modern prison system was finalized. Concept of
"Probation Service" was introduced in 1991, and three years before that first prison intended
solely for the holding of inmates in permanent isolation was formed. Those "supermax"
prisons became widespread across the entire United States, with over 40 of them being active
in the year 2005. Inmates in those prisons are held in the 23h long periods of cell isolation,
with occasional communal yard time, work, educational programs and meals in cafeteria. As
of 2006, it is estimated that over 9 million people are imprisoned worldwide with United
States leading in the rate of incarceration (743 per 100.000 people)11.

10
http://books.google.com/books?id=lVKsRQjN9M4C&pg=PA6 [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
Lewis, W. David (2009). From Newgate to Dannemora: The Rise of the Penitentiary in New York, 1796-1848.
Cornell University Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780801475481.
11
http://www.prisonhistory.net/prison-history/history-of-prisons/ [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 13

CHAPTER II
PRISON SYSTEM IN ANCIENT INDIA

In India, the early prisons were only places of detention where an offender was
detained until trial and judgmenent and the execution of the latter. The structure of the society
in ancient India was founded on the principles enunciated by Manu and explained by
Yagnavalkya, Kautilya and others12. Among various types of corporal punishments –
branding, hanging, mutilation and death, the imprisonment was the mildest kind of penalty
known prominently in ancient Indian penology. Imprisonment occupied an ordinary place
among the penal treatment and this type of corporal punishment was suggested in Hindu
scriptures, the evildoer was put into prison to segregate him from the society. The main aim
of imprisonment was to keep away the wrong doers, so that they might not defile the
members of social order13. These prisons were totally dark dens, cool and damp, unlighted
and un-warmed. There was not proper arrangement for the sanitation and no means of facility
for human dwelling. Fine, imprisonment, banishment, mutilation and death sentence were the
punishments in vogue. Fine was the most common and condemned person who could not pay
his bill to bondage until it was paid by his labour14. Fines for murder of a Brahmin were 1000
cows,for killing a Kashtriya 500 cows, for a Vaishya 100 cows and for a Sudra or women of
any caste15. Though the Indian law gives had a little description of jail life, even then
historical account gave a clear picture after the analysis of the available data. A few Smiriti
writers supplied some information concerning jail. Yajnavalkya had narrated that person who
was instrumental for the escape of a prisoner had undergone capital punishment. Vishnu
suggested the penalty of imprisonment to a person who hurt the eyes of a man16.
Kautilya described the place of prison location as well as the occasions when the
prisoners can be released. The officers of the jail were known as Bhandanagaradhyaksa
andkarka. The former was superintendent and the latter was one of his assistants. The jail
department was under the charge of Sannidhata. There are references to prisoners in Ashokan
inscriptions especially the fifth Rock Edict. Kautilya has further described the duties of the

12
KVR Aiyanger, “Some aspects of Ancient Indian Polity”, Quoted in VidyaBhusan “ Prison Administration in
India” P.2
13
VasudevUpadhya, A study of Hindu Criminology, p.322.
14
Basham, ‘Wonder that was India’ p.115, quoted in, I J Singh,’Indian prison’, p.19.
15
I J Singh,’Indian prison’, p.19.
16
VasudevUpadhya, ‘A study of Hindu Criminology’ p.323, quoted in, A Mohanty and Narayan Hazare
 14

jailor who always keeps eyes on the movements of prisoners and the proper functioning of
the prison17.
Prof. RamachandraDikhitar in his book entitled “Mauryan Polity", has suggested that
Ashoka was familiar with the Arthashastra, for Ashokaspeaks of as much as twenty five jail
deliveries effected by him in the course of 26 years since his appointment to the throne18. In
the post Ashokan age the jatakas gives a picture of the prisoners being released at the time of
war. From Harsha Charitha, it appears that the condition of the prisoners was far from
satisfactory. According to Hiuen – Tsang prisoners generally received harsh treatment. At the
time of Royal coronation prisoners were released19.
From the above discussion it is quite evident that regular prison system as such was
not in existence in ancient India an imprisonment as a mode of punishment was not a regular
feature when compared to the modern system in India.

17
Supra note 23.
18
Supra note 23, Pg. 324.
19
A Mohanty and Narayan Hazare, ‘Indian Prison system’ p. 21.
 15

CHAPTER III
PRISON SYSTEM IN MEDIEVAL INDIA

The legal system in the Mediaeval India resembled that of Ancient India and the
contemporary Muslim rulers seldom, if at all, attempted to tamper with the day to day
administration of Justice. During the Mughal period sources of law and its character
essentially remained Quranic. Crimes were divided into three groups, namely, a) Offences
against God, b) offences against State, c) offences against private persons. Punishment for
these offences were of four classes, they were, 1) Hadd 2)tazir 3) Quisas 4) Tasir.
Imprisonment was not resorted as a form of punishment in the case of ordinary criminals. It
was used mostly as a means of detention only. There were fortress situated in different part of
the country, in which the criminals were detained pending trail and judgement.
There used to be three ‘Noble prisons or Castles’ in Mughal India. One was at
Gwalior, second one at Ranathambore and the last one at Rohtas..
The only redeeming feature of the prisoners was that orders for their release were
issued on special occasions. On the occasion of the celebrations of recovery from illness of
the favorite Princes Begum Sahib, Shahajahan ordered the release of prisoners in 1638 AD.
Some rooms in forts popularly known as the Bhandhikahanas or Adab – Khanas were
reserved for prisoners, and culprits who had committed serious crimes were sent to such from
different places.
During the Maratha period also, imprisonment as a form of punishment was not very
common. Death, Mutilation, fine were common forms of punishments. The form of
punishment, as during the ancient and Mughal period, continued in Maratha period also.
The main features of the prison system prevailed in pre- British period may be
summarized as below:
a) There were no prisons in Modern sense.
b) There was no description of internal administration of prisons.
c) No separate prison service existed and courts were not feeding centers for prisons.
d) There were no rules for maintenance of prisons.
 16

CHAPTER IV
PRISON SYSTEM IN MODERN INDIA20

The prison system as it operates today in our country is a legacy of the British rule. It
was an ingenious creation of the colonial rulers Over our indigenous penal system with the
prime motive of making imprisonment “a terror to wrong doers”. Nevertheless it was a great
leap in the history of our penal reforms as it facilitated the abolition of our old fashion system
of barbarous punishments and substitution of imprisonment as the chief form of punishment
for crimes. In 1784 the British Parliament empowered the East India Company to rule India
and since then some attempts were made to introduce reforms in the administration of Law
and Justice. At that time there were 143 civil jails, 75 criminal jails and 68 mixed jails. In fact
these jails were an extension Mughal rule which were managed by the personnel of the East
India Company in their efforts to maintain peace and establish their trade. As Dr. BK
Bhattacharya has very aptly observed, “ the British believed only in keeping in custody the
prisoners as economically as possible and with the maximum profit to the Government”. It
was quite natural that the early British Administration had formulated its Prison Policy with a
view to serving it colonial interests alone.
In 1835 Lord Macauly drew the attention of Legislative Council of India to the
deplorable conditions of the Indian Jails and proposed to appoint a committee “ for the
purpose of collecting information as to the state of Indian Prisons and of preparing an
improved plan of prison discipline......and to suggest such reforms as may make the place (the
jail at Alipore) a model for other prisons”. The council accepted Macauly’s proposal and
appointed ‘The Prison Discipline Committee’ with Hon’ble H Shakespeare as President and
Lord Macauly as one of the members. The report of the Committee came out in 1838. The
Enquiry Committee was a landmark in the history penal administration in India. Prisons were
given different treatment, the nature and character of the institution assumed a changed
meaning, though it was punitive basically.
The committee directed for the first time the attention of the English rulers of India to
various vices of the administration of Indian Jails. It criticized the corruption of subordinate
establishment, the laxity of discipline and the system of employing prisoners in extra mural
labour or public roads.

20
http://isindexing.com/isi/papers/1415969713.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 17

The committee deliberately rejected all such reforming influences a moral and
religious teaching, education or any system of rewards for good conduct, it through the whole
weight of its authority in favour of increased rigour of treatment, and proposed to engage all
convicts in some dull, monotonous wear some and interesting task in which quicker relief
could be secured by working harder for a time. The purposes the prisons according this
committee was to make “the goal a place of dread” through a ruthless process of “severe
privation, really hard work, solitude, silence and separation”. In pursuance of the
recommendations of the committee a Central Prison was constructed at Agra in 1846. This
was the first Central Prison in India and was followed by the construction of central prisons at
Bareilly and Allahabad in 1848, at Lahore in 1852, at Madras in 1857, at Bombay in 1864, at
Alipore in 1864 at Banaras and Fatehgarh in 1864 and at Lucknow 1867. This was the
positive contribution in the spear of Prison Reforms in this country, along with its advocacy
of the theory of retribution in prison administration.
In 1844 the first inspector General of Prisons was appointed in the North Western
Province on an experimental basis for two years and was extended further, in 1850 the
Government of India Made it a permanent post and suggested that each province should
appoint an Inspector General of Prisons. In 1862 the North Western Province employed civil
Surgeons as Superintendents of District Jails. In 1870 the Government of India passed
Prisons Act. It lay down that there should be a Superintendent, a Medical Officer, a Jailor and
such subordinate officers as the local government thinks necessary. This act categorically
specified the duties of the prison officials. It also made provision for the separation of
prisoners of male from females, of children offenders from adults, of criminal from civil
offenders. In 1877 and 1889 third and fourth enquiry committees were instituted. Based on
the recommendations of the committees the Prison Act of 1894 was passed. By this the jails
appeared to have achieved considerable material progress during this period. In 1919 the
British Government appointed a Joint Commission of officials to investigate the whole
subject of jail management and to suggest improvement. The commission recommended the
establishment of separate institutions like Borstal School for juvenile defilements. The under
trials were to be kept separate from the convicted and the adult convicts were to be classified
as habitual and casuals. The committee report also took serious views on transportation of
convicts to Andaman Islands and recommended for the discontinuation of the practice.
Solitary confinement was abolished. All convicts below 29 years of age were to be cared
under adult education programmes and libraries were to be established in all Jails. Quality of
food to be improved and prisoners were to be provided with two sets of clothing. The
 18

commission underlined the idea of reform of inmates as ultimate objective of imprisonment

and rehabilitation of prisoners as social necessity.
Unfortunately the prison reform movement received a sudden setback due to the
constitutional changes brought about by the Government of India Act of 1919. The Act
transferred the jail department from the control of the Government of India to that of
Provincial Government.
With the dawn of independence, prison reform was given increased attention. Indian
leaders were ready with a blue print for the industrial development of the country, but the jail
reform could not escape their eyes as all of them passed their prime life in the jails. Prison
administration is a state subject under the constitution of India. The organization, headed by
the Inspector General of Prisons consists of central prisons, sub jails or district jails. Different
states have adopted different patterns of jail administration. The central Jails are intended for
long term prisoners who are convicted in courts.
 19

CHAPTER V
TYPES OF PRISON
Prisons in India, and their administration, are a state subject covered by item 4 under
the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The management and
administration of prisons falls exclusively in the domain of the State governments, and is
governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison manuals of the respective state
governments. Thus, states have the primary role, responsibility and authority to change the
current prison laws, rules and regulations. The Central Government provides assistance to the
states to improve security in prisons, for the repair and renovation of old prisons, medical
facilities, development of borstal schools, facilities to women offenders, vocational training,
modernization of prison industries, training to prison personnel, and for the creation of high
security enclosures.
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgments on various aspects of prison
administration, has laid down 3 broad principles regarding imprisonment and custody. Firstly,
a person in prison does not become a non-person. Secondly, a person in prison is entitled to
all human rights within the limitations of imprisonment. Lastly, there is no justification for
aggravating the suffering already inherent in the process of incarceration.
Prison establishments in India comprise 8 categories of jails. The most common and
standard jail institutions are Central Jails, District Jails and Sub Jails. The other types of jail
establishments are Women Jails, Borstal Schools, Open Jails and Special Jails.

CENTRAL JAIL
The criteria for a jail to be categorised as a Central Jail varies from state to state.
However, the common feature observed throughout India is that prisoners sentenced to
imprisonment for a long period (more than 2 years) are confined in the Central Jails, which
have larger capacity in comparison to other jails. These jails also have rehabilitation facilities.
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have the highest number of 9 Central Jails each
followed by Karnataka, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi with 8 each. Arunachal
Pradesh, Meghalaya, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and
Lakshadweep do not have any Central Jails21.
The available information regarding capacity for prison inmates in central jails in
respect of States/UTs indicates that Maharashtra (14,841),Tamil Nadu(14,127),Punjab

21
http://ncrb.nic.in/PSI-2011/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 20

(13,810),Madhya Pradesh(13,422),Bihar (11,826)and West Bengal(11,300)have

comparatively larger capacity followed by Jharkhand (8,140),Rajasthan(8,013),Gujarat
(7,680),Uttar Pradesh(7,769),Karnataka (6,426)and Delhi (4,800).Central jails in Punjab
(985),Karnataka(666),Madhya Pradesh (623), Karnataka (485),Gujarat (480) and
Maharashtra (452)have comparatively higher capacity to accommodate female prisoners22.

DISTRICT JAILS
District jails serve as the main prisons in some of the States/UTs. States which have
considerable number of district jails are Uttar Pradesh (56) followed by Madhya Pradesh
(33), Bihar (31), Rajasthan (25), Maharashtra (27),Assam (22), Karnataka (19), Jharkhand
(17), Haryana (16) and West Bengal (12). The district jails in Uttar Pradesh (43,383),
Bihar(17,892), Haryana (14,044),Madhya Pradesh (7,771),Maharashtra(6,738),West Bengal
(5,842),Jharkhand(4,875), Karnataka (3,935),Rajasthan(3,809)and Assam(3,732)have the
capacity of lodging a large number of inmates. Comparatively higher capacity for
accommodation of female inmates was also reported in district jails of Uttar
Pradesh(2,627)followed by Haryana (1,239), Bihar(599), Madhya Pradesh (587)and West
Bengal (555)23.

SUB JAILS
Ten States have reported comparatively higher number of sub jails revealing a well
organized prison setup even at lower formation. These States are Maharashtra (100),
Andhra Pradesh (99),Tamil Nadu (96),Madhya Pradesh (78),Odisha (73),Karnataka (70),
Rajasthan(60), West Bengal(33),Bihar (17)and Kerala (16) while7States/UTs have no sub-
jails(namely Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim, Chandigarh and
Delhi). The State of Odisha had the highest capacity of inmates (10,272) in various Sub-jails
followed by Madhya Pradesh(6,029),Bihar (4,012),Rajasthan(3,368),Tamil Nadu (3,100),
Karnataka(2,240), West Bengal (2,132),Gujarat(1,590)and Maharashtra (1,589)24.

WOMEN JAILS
Women jails exclusively for women prisoners exist only in 13 States/UTs.

22
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
23
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
24
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 21

Tamil Nadu & Kerala have 3 women jails each and Rajasthan & West Bengal have 2 women
jails each. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Telangana, Uttar
Pradesh and Delhi have one women jail each. The total capacity of women inmates was
highest in Tamil Nadu (1,569) followed by Rajasthan (469),Uttar Pradesh (420), West Bengal
& Delhi (400 each), Punjab (320), Maharashtra (262),Kerala (272), Telangana
(220),Gujarat(210)and Andhra Pradesh (160)25.

BORSTAL SCHOOL
The primary objective of borstal schools is to ensure care, welfare and rehabilitation
of young offenders in a different environment suitable for children and keep them away from
contaminating atmosphere of the prison. The juveniles in conflict with law detained in borstal
schools are provided various vocational trainings. They are also given education with the help
of trained teachers. Nine States namely, Tamil Nadu (12) and Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan & Telangana (1each)have reported
Borstal Schools in their respective jurisdiction. Tamil Nadu had the highest capacity
forkeeping678inmates followed by Punjab (500), Rajasthan (312), Karnataka (200),
Maharashtra(105) and Jharkhand(100). Telangana (93),Kerala (90)and Himachal Pradesh
(30).Himachal Pradesh (15)and Kerala (12)are the only States which have reported capacity
for lodging female inmates in their Borstal schools Existence of borstal schools was not
reported from any of the UTs26.

OPEN JAILS
Prisoners with good behaviour satisfying certain norms prescribed in the prison rules
are admitted in open prisons. Minimum security is kept in such prisons and Prisoners are
engaged in agricultural activities. Only 17 States have reported about the functioning of open
jails in their jurisdiction. Amongst these States, Rajasthan has reported the highest number of
23 open jails. Maharashtra has 10 followed by Kerala and Tamil Nadu (3 each ), Gujarat and
West Bengal (2 jails each). The remaining 11 States – Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,
Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha , Punjab , Telangana and
Uttarakhand have one open jail each27.

25
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
26
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
27
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 22

SPECIAL JAILS
Special jail means any prison provided for the confinement of a particular class or
particular classes of prisoners which are broadly as follows:
i. Prisoners who have committed serious violations of prison discipline.
ii. Prisoners showing tendencies towards violence and aggression.
iii. Difficult discipline cases of habitual offenders.
iv. Difficult discipline cases from a group of professional/organised criminals.
Out of the twelve States having Special j ails, Kerala ha s the highest (16 jails) followed
by Tamil Nadu (4), West Bengal (3jails),Gujarat, Karnataka, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh &
Puducherry (2 jails each) and Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra & A&N Islands (1jail each). As far
as the available capacity in these jails is concerned, the highest capacity for keeping the
prisoners was available in Bihar (3,288) followed by Odisha (1,551),West Bengal
(1,117),Kerala (1,010),A&N Islands (800), Uttar Pradesh (788),Gujarat (650),Tamil
Nadu(590), Assam (372),Karnataka (250) and Maharashtra (246)in their special jails.
Provision for keeping female prisoners in these special jails was available in Tamil Nadu
(418), West Bengal (95), Gujarat (50),Odisha (39),Kerala (40), Assam & Karnataka (12
each)and Maharashtra (3)28.

OTHER JAILS
Some States/UTs have other jails also besides the jails discussed above. Only four
States namely Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra (1 each) have other jails in their
jurisdiction. The capacity of inmates (male &female) in such jails was highest in Karnataka
(250)followed by Kerala (142),Goa (45) and Maharashtra (28)during the year 201429.

28
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
29
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-1.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2015 at 11:45 am]
 23

CHAPTER VI
IRREGULARITIES IN PRISON
DEATHS IN JAILS30
Death of a prisoner is always a matter of serious concern for prison administration.
Sometimes such deaths lead to law and order problems. Deaths in jails have been broadly
classified in to two categories i.e. natural deaths and unnatural deaths. Unnatural deaths
include suicide, murder by inmates, death due to firing, death due to negligence or excesses
by jail personnel, etc.
A total of 1,702 prisoners have died in jails due to natural and unnatural causes during
2014 in the country out of which 1,507 were natural deaths and 195 were due to
unnatural causes.Out of the 1,702 deaths in jails, females have accounted for 3.0% (51 out of
1,702 inmates). Among 51 females inmates who died in jails, 46 females have died due to
natural death and 5 females have died due to unnatural deaths which accounted for 90.2% and
9.8% of total female deaths in jails during 2014.Natural deaths accounted for 88.5 % of the
total deaths (1,507 out of 1,702) . Uttar Pradesh has reported the highest number of deaths
due to natural causes (298) followed by Punjab ( 218), Madhya Pradesh (122),Bihar
&Maharashtra(96 each) and West Bengal(82).
Among the unnatural deaths in prison, Odisha has reported the highest number (44) of
such deaths followed by Uttar Pradesh (23), West Bengal (21),Karnataka(15), Punjab &
Rajasthan (12each) and Haryana (10).Most of the unnatural deaths were in form of
suicides(94) followed by uncategorized deaths (82), murdered by fellow inmates (12), deaths
due to assault by outside elements (4),deaths due to firings(2) and deaths due to
negligence/excess by jail personnel (1). Out of 94 suicides, Uttar Pradesh has reported the
highest number of suicides (18) in prisons followed by Karnataka & Punjab (10 each), West
Bengal (9), Maharashtra & Rajasthan (6each) and Tamil Nadu & Delhi (5 each) such suicides
respectively. No deaths due to execution were reported in the country during 2014. A total of
51 female inmates have also died in jails during 2014. Among these 51 female deaths, 5 have
died due to unnatural causes and 46 died due to natural causes.

30
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-9.pdf [acc. on 02/10/2014 at 11:45 am]
 24

INMATE POPULATION AND OVERCROWD IN PRISONS31

Overcrowding is one of the biggest problems faced by good number of jails. Keeping
in view the human rights of the prisons, it is essential that they are given reasonable space
and facilities in jails. For this purpose, the special attention is being given on the
modernisation of jails. More funds are being allocated to increase the infrastructure in jails.
Occupancy rate is defined as number of inmates staying in jails against the authorized
capacity for 100 inmates. In other words, if occupancy rate of any jail is 100, it means the
number inmates are as per authorized capacity of the jail. Overcrowding in jail means
occupancy rate is more than 100. It is evident as per the information available from
States/UTs regarding population of inmates in various prisons that the prison population was
satisfactorily managed during the year 2014 in 12 States and 5 UTs as the occupancy rate in
these States/UTs remained less than 100%. These States and UTs are Gujarat (96.9%), West
Bengal(96.0%),Andhra Pradesh (94.8%), Telangana (87.7%), Bihar (84.1%),Odisha (82.4%),
Mizoram (81.0%),Jammu & Kashmir (75.9%), Tamil Nadu(71.5%), Chandigarh (70.2%),
Puducherry (68.3%), Andaman & Nicobar Islands(61.6%), Manipur (56.1%), Daman &
Diu(49.4%), Lakshadweep (43.8%), Tripura(41.8%) and Nagaland (30.6%). Dadra &Nagar
Haveli has reported the highest overcrowding (331.7%) followed by Chhattisgarh (258.9%),
Arunachal Pradesh (226.8%), Delhi (221.6%), Uttar Pradesh (167.1%), Meghalaya
(153.4%),Goa (144.4%), Punjab (139.2%), Madhya Pradesh (133.7%), Uttarakhand
(127.2%),Jharkhand (123.1%), Himachal Pradesh(122.4%), Rajasthan (118.4%),
Kerala(114.3%), Haryana (112.0%),Maharashtra (110.7%), Karnataka(106.3%), Sikkim (
104.3%) And Assam(101.9%).

31
http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2014/CHAPTER-2.pdf
 25

CHAPTER VII
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
A variety of justifications and explanations are put forth for why people are
imprisoned by the state. The most common of these are:

Rehabilitation:
Theories of rehabilitation claim that the experience of being imprisoned will cause
people to change their lives in a way that will make them productive and law-abiding
members of society once they are released. However, this is not supported by empirical
evidence, and in practice prisons tend to be ineffective at improving the lives of most
prisoners. As Morris and Rothman (1995) point out, "It's hard to train for freedom in a
cage."While the view of prisons as centers of rehabilitation was popular during the early
development of the modern prison system, it is not widely held anymore, and has mostly
been replaced by theories of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution.

Deterrence:
Theories of deterrence claim that by sentencing criminals to extremely harsh
penalties, other people who might be considering criminal activities will be so terrified of the
consequences that they will choose not to commit crimes out of fear. In reality, most studies
show that high incarceration rates increase crime, have no noticeable effect, or only decrease
it by a very small amount. Prisons act as training grounds for criminal activity, form criminal
social networks, expose prisoners to further abuse (both from staff and other prisoners), foster
anti-social sentiments towards society (law enforcement and corrections personnel in
particular), fragment communities, and leave prisoners with criminal records that make it
difficult to find legal employment after release. All of these things can result in a higher
likelihood of reoffending upon release.

Incapacitation:
Justifications based on incapacitation claim that while prisoners are incarcerated, they
will be unable to commit crimes, thus keeping communities safer. Critics point out that this is
based on a false distinction between "inside" and "outside", and that the prisoners will simply
continue to victimize people inside of the prison (and in the community once they are
 26

released), and that the harm done by these actions has real impacts on the society outside of
the prison walls.

Retribution:
Theories of retribution seek to exact revenge upon criminals by harming them in
exchange for harms caused to their victims. These theories do not necessarily focus on
whether or not a particular punishment benefits the community, but are more concerned with
ensuring that the punishment causes a sufficient level of misery for the prisoner, in proportion
to the perceived seriousness of their crime. These theories are based upon a belief that some
kind of moral balance will be achieved by "paying back" the prisoner for the wrongs they
have committed.
 27

CHAPTER VIII
RIGHTS OF PRISONER
Less than 200 years ago, the attitude to prisons, prisoners and punishment was brutal
and barbaric. Recognition of the human being in the convicted offender is an idea that has
been accepted after a long struggle with the state.
The Indian socio-legal system is based on non-violence, mutual respect and human
dignity of the individual. If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing
a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life
which constitutes human dignity. Even the prisoners have human rights because the prison
torture is not the last drug in the Justice Pharmacopoeia but a confession of failure to do
justice to living man. For a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality, though
restricted by the fact of imprisonment.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right of personal liberty and thereby
prohibits any inhuman, cruel or degrading treatments to any person whether he is a national
or foreigner. Any violation of this right attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution which enshrines right to equality and equal protection of law. In addition to this,
the question of cruelty to prisoners is also dealt with specifically by the Prison Act, 1894. If
any excesses are committed on a prisoner, the prison administration is responsible for that.
Any excesses committed on a prisoner by the police authorities not only attract the attention
of the legislature but also of the judiciary. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme
Court in the recent past has been very vigilant against encroachments upon the human rights
of the prisoners.

Right to Legal Aid

The talk of human rights would become meaningless unless a person is provided with
legal aid to enable him to have access to justice in case of violation of his human rights. This
a formidable challenge in the country of India’s size and heterogeneity where more than half
of the population lives in far-flung villages steeped in poverty, destitution and illiteracy.
Legal aid is no longer a matter of charity or benevolence but is one of the constitutional rights
and the legal machinery itself is expected to deal specifically with it. The basic philosophy of
legal aid envisages that the machinery of administration of justice should be easily accessible
and should not be out of the reach of those who have to resort to it for the enforcement of
 28

their legal rights. In fact legal aid offers a challenging opportunity to the society to redress
grievances of the poor and thereby law foundation of Rule of Law.
In India, judiciary has played an important role in developing the concept of legal aid
and expanding its scope so as to enable the people to have access to courts in case of any
violation of their human rights. In the case of M.H. Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of
Maharashtra,32 the Court held that the right to legal aid is one of the ingredients of fair
procedure.
If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, is virtually unable to exercise his
constitutional and statutory right of appeal, for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in
the court under article 142 read with article 21 and 39-A of the Constitution, power to assign
council for such imprisoned individual for doing complete justice. Where the prisoner is
disabled from engaging a lawyer, on reasonable grounds such as indigence or
incommunicado situation, the court shall, if the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the
sentence, and the ends of justice so required, assign competent counsel for the prisoners
defense, provided the party doesn’t object to that lawyer.

Right to Speedy Trial

Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of a prisoner implicit in article 21 of the
Constitution. It ensures just, fair and reasonable procedure. The fact that a speedy trial is also
in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less right of
accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is
determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar33, a shocking state of affairs in
regard to the administration of justice came forward. An alarmingly large number of men and
women, including children are behind prison bars for years awaiting trial in the court of law.
The offences with which some of them were charged were trivial, which, even if proved
would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps a year or two, and yet
these unfortunate forgotten specimens of humanity were in jail, deprived of their freedom, for
periods ranging from three to ten years without as much as their trial having commenced.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its concerned and said that:
What faith can these lost souls have in the judicial system which denies them a
bare trial for so many years and keeps them behind the bars not because they are

32
1978 AIR 1548.
33
1979 AIR 1360.
 29

witnesses or not, within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by
law for the trial of the case.
2. In such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail for a period of not less
than one half of the maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence, the trial court
shall release the accused on bail forthwith on such conditions as it deems fit.
3. If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years,
whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on
completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge
framed, whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period
and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.
In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and others,34 the court while
delivering its judgment said that: In spite of such review, from the figures which we have
cited above, it is clear that there is very little prospect of a speedy trial of cases under TADA
in some of the States because of the absence of an adequate number of Designated Courts
even in cases where a chargesheet has been filed and the cases are ready for trial.. But when
the release of under-trials on bail is severely restricted as in the case of TADA by virtue of
the provisions of Section 20 (8) of TADA, it becomes necessary that the trial does proceed
and conclude within treasonable time. Where this is not practical, release on bail which can
be taken to be embedded in the right of a speedy trial may, in some cases, be necessary to
meet the requirements of Article 21.

Right against Solitary Confinement, Handcuffing & Bar Fetters and Protection from Torture
Solitary Confinement in a general sense means the separate confinement of a prisoner,
with only occasional access of any other person, and that too only at the discretion of the jail
authorities. In strict sense it means the complete isolation of a prisoner from all human
society.
Torture is regarded by the police/investigating agency as normal practice to check
information regarding crime, the accomplice, extract confession. Police officers who are
supposed to be the protector of civil liberties of citizens themselves violate precious rights of
citizens. But torture of a human being by another human is essentially an instrument to
impose the will of the strong over the weak. Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that
sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heel it.

34
1996 SCC (2) 616.
 30

guilty; but because they are too poor to afford bail and the courts have no time to try
them.
One reason why our legal and judicial system continually denies justice to the poor by
keeping them for long years in pretrial detention is our highly unsatisfactory bail system. This
system of bail operates very harshly against the poor and it is only the non-poor who are able
to take advantage of it by getting themselves released on bail. The poor find it difficult to
furnish bail even without sureties because very often the amount of bail fixed by the courts is
so unrealistically excessive that in a majority of cases the poor are unable to satisfy the police
or the magistrate about their solvency for the amount of the bail and where the bail is with
sureties as is usually the case, it becomes an almost impossible task for the poor to find
persons sufficiently solvent to stand as sureties.
In Mathew Areeparmtil and other v. State of Bihar35 and other, a large number of
people were languishing in jails without trial for petty offences. Directions were issued to
release those persons. Further the court ordered that the cases which involve tribal accused
concerning imprisonment of more than 7 yrs. should be released on execution of a personal
bond. In the case where trial has started accused should be released on bail on execution of a
personal bond. In case where no proceedings at all have taken place in regard to the accused
within three yrs., from the date of the lodging of FIR, the accused should be released
forthwith under S.169 Cr. P.C. if there are cases in which neither charge-sheet have been
submitted nor investigation has been completed during the last three years, the accused
should be released forthwith subject to reinvestigation to the said cases on the fresh facts and
they should not be arrested without the permission of the magistrate.
In the case of Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar,36 the question before the court
was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution against the petitioner
is to be quashed on the ground of delay in the conduct of trial. The petitioner has never
suffered incarceration. His application for bail was ordered on the day he appeared before the
Court and presented the same. Allowing the appeal Supreme Court gave the following
directions:
1. In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not
exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the
prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the
plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the

35
1984 AIR 1854.
36
2000 (1) BLJR 37.
 31

An arrested person or under-trial prisoner should not be subjected to handcuffing in

the absence of justifying circumstances. When the accused are found to be educated persons,
selflessly devoting their service to public cause, not having tendency to escape and tried and
convicted for bailable offence, there is no reason for handcuffing them while taking them
from prison to court.
In the case of Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration,37 the petitioner was an
under-trial prisoner in Tihar jail. He was required to be taken from jail to magistrate court and
back periodically in connection with certain cases pending against him. The trial court has
directed the concerned officer that while escorting him to the court and back handcuffing
should not be done unless it was so warranted. But handcuffing was forced on him by the
escorts. He therefore sent a telegram to one of the judges of Supreme Court on the basis of
which the present habeas corpus petition has been admitted by the court.
To handcuff is to hoop harshly and to punish humiliatingly. The minimum freedom of
movement, under which a detainee is entitled to under Art.19, cannot be cut down by the
application of handcuffs. Handcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for
ensuring security.
There must be material, sufficiently stringent, to satisfy a reasonable mind that there
is clear and present danger of escape of the prisoner who is being transported by breaking out
of police control. Even when in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on prisoner,
the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. The judicial
officer before whom the prisoner is produced has to interrogate the prisoner, as a rule,
whether he has been subjected to handcuffs and other ‘iron’ treatments and if he has been, the
official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith.
In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,38 the Court treating the letter
addressed to the Chief justice as a writ petition made the following order:
In almost every States there are allegations and these allegations are now increasing in
frequency of deaths in custody described generally by newspapers as lock-up deaths. At
present there does not appear to be any machinery to effectively deal with such allegations.
Since this is an all India question concerning all States, it is desirable to issue notices to all
the State Governments to find out whether they are desire to say anything in the matter. Let
notices issue to all the State Government. Let notice also issue to the Law Commission of

37
1980 SCR (3) 855.
38
1997 (1) SCC 416.
 32

India with a request that suitable suggestions may be made in the matter. Notice be made
returnable in two months from today.
Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a
very large extent, the individual personally. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and
whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward. Fundamental rights
occupy a place of pride in the Indian Constitution. Article 21 provides no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution. The expression
life or personal liberty has been held to include the right to live with human dignity and thus
it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its
functionaries. Article 22 guarantees protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
and declares that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed of the grounds of such arrest and he shall not be denied the right to consult and
defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Right to meet friends and Consult Lawyer

The horizon of human rights is expanding. Prisoner’s rights have been recognized not
only to protect them from physical discomfort or torture in the prison but also to save them
from mental torture.
In the case of Sunil Batra(II) v. Delhi Administration ,39 the Supreme Court
recognized the right of the prisoners to be visited by their friends and relatives. The court
favoured their visits but subject to search and discipline and other security criteria.

39
1980 SCR (2) 557.