Holding

The petition is maintainable as the State is a party interested, the case cannot be transferred under Section 406 because it is under investigation, but the Court may, under Article 142, order the transfer of the prisoner to Uttar Pradesh.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the transfer of criminal proceedings against sitting MLA Mukhtar Ansari from a Punjab court to a Special Court in Allahabad and the hand‑over of his custody from Roopnagar Jail, Punjab to District Jail Banda, Uttar Pradesh. The petition argued that the State is a "party interested" under Section 406 and that the Punjab jail repeatedly refused to produce the accused on medical grounds, obstructing the trial of ten pending cases in Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that the State, as the prosecuting agency, qualifies as a party interested, making the petition maintainable, but declined to order transfer of the case because it was still at the investigation stage and Section 406 does not apply to investigations. However, invoking its power under Article 142, the Court directed the Punjab authorities to transfer the accused to the Uttar Pradesh jail within two weeks and to provide necessary medical facilities. The relief seeking transfer of the criminal case was denied and the accompanying transfer petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The petition's maintainability under Article 32 and Section 406 of the CrPC.
Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh qualifies as a "party interested" under Section 406(2).
Whether Section 406 can be invoked to transfer a case that is still at the investigation stage.
Whether the Supreme Court can order inter‑state transfer of a prisoner under Article 142 despite the absence of a specific statutory provision.
Whether the Punjab jail authorities can be directed to hand over custody of the accused.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 267, s. Section 269, s. Section 406
Constitution of Indias. Article 142, s. Article 32
Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950s. Section 3

Subjects

Article 32Section 406 CrPCparty interestedinter‑state prisoner transferArticle 142custodyspecial court MP/MLAinvestigation stagemedical groundswrit petition

Judgment

[2021] 2 S.C.R. 863 863

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH A
v.
JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 409 of 2020)
MARCH 26, 2021 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Constitution of India/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Art.
32/s.406 – Petition u/Art. 32 read with s. 406 – Maintainability of –
On facts, various criminal cases filed against sitting MLA from Mau
C
District, UP – Ten criminal cases pending trial against him,
transferred to Special Court and accused lodged in District Jail,
Banda, UP, pursuant to order of Special Judge – Meanwhile case
registered against accused in District Mohali, Punjab u/ss. 386 and
506 IPC – Pursuant to the issuance of production warrant,
Superintendent of District Jail, Banda, UP, without permission from D
the Court of Special Judge (MPs/MLAs), Allahabad gave custody
of the accused to the Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, Punjab –
Thereafter, on passing of remand order, accused lodged in District
Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab, and since then, he is continuing in the
said jail – For last two years, number of warrants issued for
E
production of accused before the various Courts in UP but Jail
Authorities, Roopnagar, Punjab refused to give custody on the
pretext that the accused was unwell – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 rw s.
406 by State of UP seeking directions to the State of Punjab and
Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, Punjab, to transfer the criminal
proceedings and trial in the criminal case pending before the F
Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, to the Court of Special Judge (MP/
MLA), Allahabad, UP, and directions to Jail Superintendent,
Roopnagar and State of Punjab to handover the custody of the
accused from Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, Punjab to District
Jail Banda, UP – Held: The State, being a prosecuting agency in
G
the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such
administration, as such, the State is considered as a “party interested”
within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of s. 406 and petition u/s.
406 is maintainable – However, relief sought for transfer of the
case is not granted, since in the criminal case on the file of Police
Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab, no final report is filed by H
863
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A the Police and it is at the stage of investigation and as such, s. 406
Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service – As regards, the transfer
from one prison to another, a convict or an undertrial prisoner,
who disobeys the law of the land, cannot oppose his transfer from
one prison to another – Courts are not to be a helpless bystander,
when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity – Arms of
B
law are long enough to remedy the situation – In such situations,
this Court can exercise power u/Art. 142 to order transfer of prisoner
from one prison to another, thus, issuance of directions to the Jail
Superintendent Roopnagar and State of Punjab, to handover
custody of the accused to the State of UP, within a period of two
C weeks, so as to lodge him in District Jail, Banda in UP where the
Jail Authorities would extend the necessary medical facilities to
accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 406 – Power under –
Words “party interested” – Interpretation of – Held: s. 406 confers
D power on this Court to transfer of cases and appeals on the
application filed by the Attorney-General of India or by a party
interested – In the criminal administration system, State is the
prosecuting agency, working for and on behalf of the people of the
State, as such the State can be said to be a party interested within
the meaning of s. 406(2) of the Code – Words “party interested”
E are of a wide import and, thus, have to be interpreted by giving a
wider meaning – Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause
of the Statute and not to defeat the same – Interpretation of statutes.
Partly allowing the writ petition and dismissing the transfer
petitions, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 The instant petition, filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India / Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is held to be maintainable under Section 406 of
the Code. The relief, sought for transfer of the case-transfer the
criminal proceedings and trial in the criminal case pending against
G the 3rd Respondent-sitting MLA from Mau District, UP, before
the Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, to the Court of Special Judge
(MP/MLA), Allahabad, UP is not granted, inasmuch as the case
in Crime No.05 of 2019, on the file of Police Station Mathaur,
District Mohali, Punjab, is at the stage of investigation, as such,
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 865

Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service. At the A
same time, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, directions are issued directing the
Respondent no. 1 - Jail Superintendent, Roopnagar and
Respondent no. 2 - State of Punjab , to handover custody of the
3rd Respondent to the State of Uttar Pradesh, within the stipulated
B
period so as to lodge him in District Jail, Banda in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. It is open for the Special Court, constituted for
MPs/MLAs at Allahabad to continue him either in the District
Jail at Banda or shift to any other Jail in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
if any need arises. The Superintendent of Jail, District Jail Banda,
Uttar Pradesh is directed to extend the necessary medical facilities C
to the 3 rd Respondent. It is made clear that if any specialty
treatment is required to the 3 rd Respondent, the Jail
Superintendent of District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh shall take
necessary steps to extend such medical care also, by following
the Jail Manual. [Para 28][894-C-H; 895-A]
D
1.2 From a plain reading of Section 406 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is clear that power is conferred on
this Court to transfer of cases and appeals on the application
filed by the Attorney-General of India or by a party interested.
The submission that the petitioner-State is not a party interested
cannot be accepted. It is well said that a crime against an individual E
is to be considered as a crime against a State and public, at large.
In the criminal administration system, State is the prosecuting
agency, working for and on behalf of the people of the State. It is
to be noticed that “party interested” has not been defined under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The words “party F
interested” are of a wide import and, therefore, have to be
interpreted by giving a wider meaning. The words such as
“aggrieved party”, “party to the proceedings” and “party
interested” are used in various Statutes. If the words used are to
the effect “party to the proceedings” or “party to a case”, it can
be given a restricted meaning. In such cases, the intention of the G
legislature is clear to give restricted meaning. But, at the same
time, the words used as “party interested”, which are not defined
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, have to be given a wider

H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A meaning. As a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration,
the State can be said to be a party interested within the meaning
of Section 406(2) of the Code. It is a well settled principle of law
that the Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the
Statute and not to defeat the same. The petitioner-State, being a
prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally
B
interested in such administration, as such, the State is considered
as a “party interested” within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of
Section 406 of the Code. This petition, as filed under section 406
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is maintainable at the instance
of the State. It is not necessary to decide the issue as to
C maintainability of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India. [Para 18, 19][884-F-H; 885-A-D, E-F]
K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. 2004
(3) SCC 76 7: [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 610 - relied on.
1.3 As the investigation in crime no.05 of 2019 on the file
D of Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, State of Punjab is still
at the stage of investigation and in absence of filing of Final
Report, no case is made out by the petitioner, seeking transfer
under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relief
is sought for in the writ petition. [Para 21][886-E-F]
E Ram Chander Singh Sagar (DR.) v. State of Tamil Nadu
1978 (2) SCC 35: [1978] 2 SCR 604 - referred to.
1.4 It is evidently a fit case to invoke our power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India for grant of relief to the extent,
as sought for, under Para-26(B) of the petition, to order transfer
F of the custody of the 3rd Respondent from Roopnagar Jail, District
Ropar, Punjab to District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh. It is not in
dispute that with regard to the cases and status, which are
pending trial before the Special Judge, MPs/MLAs, Allahabad, a
perusal of the chart which is furnished by the petitioner, indicates
G that the 3rd Respondent is involved in various cases of attempt to
murder, murder, cheating, conspiracy, etc., apart from offences
under Gangsters Act. The said cases, as mentioned by the
petitioner, number in Ten, are at various stages of trial. Further,
the petitioner has furnished the cases, where warrants were issued

H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 867

by the Courts in various crimes, registered in the Districts of A
Mau, etc., and when the police went to seek custody, the 1 st
respondent had refused to handover the custody on medical
grounds. The reasons for non- production are mentioned in a
tabular form. During the period from 14.02.2019 to 14.02.2020,
custody is denied to the police of Uttar Pradesh by the 1 st
B
Respondent on twenty six occasions. A perusal of the reasons
for not giving custody shows that it is mainly on the medical
grounds referring to diabetes mellitus, skin allergy, hypertension,
backache, throat infection, etc. Though, it is the case of the
petitioner, that the very registration of crime in Crime no.05 of
2019 on the file of Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab C
is a part of conspiracy at the instance of the 3rd Respondent so as
to continue in the jail at Punjab, by protracting the trials, which
are pending in the Special Court and to deny his presence in
various other crimes, registered against him for completing the
investigation. No finding is recorded on such allegation of
D
conspiracy at this stage, but, at the same time, this Court is
satisfied that the custody is denied to the Police of Uttar Pradesh
at every time on trivial grounds under guise of medical grounds
by mentioning ordinary diseases like diabetes mellitus, skin
allergy, hypertension, backache, throat infection, etc. In addition
to the same, it gives any amount of suspicion on the conduct of E
the 3rd Respondent in not even applying for grant of default bail,
for not filing Final Report (Charge-sheet) by the Police, Police
Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab within the statutory
period. Though, it is the case of the 3rd Respondent, opposing
the relief sought for, on the ground that he is permitted in majority
F
of the cases to appear by video conferencing, but the same, by
itself, is no ground to oppose the relief sought for. Though, the
earlier cases were pending in various Sessions Courts and only
to fast track the cases, Special Court is constituted for trial of
cases of MPs/MLAs in the year 2018 by the State of Uttar
Pradesh. On such constitution, all the cases where the 3 rd G
Respondent is involved for serious offences under IPC and
Gangsters Act, were transferred to the Special Court and all are
pending trial at various stages. Pursuant to the orders of the
Special Court, only the 3rd Respondent was kept in jail at Banda
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A in the State of Uttar Pradesh, so as to order his presence, as and
when required. Therefore, a convict or an undertrial prisoner,
who disobeys the law of the land, cannot oppose his transfer from
one prison to another, be a convict or an undertrial prisoner,
Courts are not to be a helpless bystander, when the rule of law is
being challenged with impunity. In such situations, this Court
B
can exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
to order transfer of prisoner from one prison to another. Though,
there is a separate enactment called The Transfer of Prisoners
Act, 1950, which permits transfer of a prisoner from one State to
another by the Government, but, the same is circumscribed under
C Section 3 of the Act, as such, the claim of the petitioner will not
fit into the same. Even then this Court, in exercise of power under
Article 142, can consider for transfer of the prisoner in the
circumstances, as pleaded by the petitioner. The arms of law are
long enough to remedy the situation. If there are any medical
ailments to the petitioner, every care shall be taken by the Jail
D
Authorities but, at the same time, on the spacious plea of ill health
by referring to minor ailments, the accused / 3 rd Respondent
cannot oppose the relief, as sought for in the writ petition.
[Para 25][889-B-H; 890-A-G]
Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar 2017 (4) SCC 397: [2017]
E 1 SCR 945 – relied on.
Union of India v. V. Sriharan 2016 (7) SCC 1 : [2015]
14 SCR 613; A.P. Christian Medical Educational
Society v. Govt. of A.P. 1986 (2) SCC 667 : [1986] 2
SCR 749; Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1963]
F 1 SCR 778; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v.
Commercial Tax Officer [1964] 4 SCR 99 ; Coffee
Board Bangalore v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer Madras
1969 (3) SCC 349 : [1970] 3 SCR 147; A.B. Bhaskara
Rao v. CBI 2011 (10) SCC 259 : [2011] 12 SCR 718;
G State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi 2004 (12) SCC 322 :
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 351; Saihba Ali v. State of
Maharashtra 2003 (7) SCC 250; Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. 2005
(3) SCC 284 – referred to.

H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 869

Case law reference A
[2015] 14 SCR 613 referred to Para 8
[1986] 2 SCR 749 referred to Para 11
[1963] 1 SCR 778 referred to Para 11
[1964] 4 SCR 99 referred to Para 11 B
[1970] 3 SCR 147 referred to Para 11
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 610 relied on Para 18
[1978] 2 SCR 604 referred to Para 20, 21
C
[2011] 12 SCR 718 referred to Para 25
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 351 referred to Para 25
(2003) 7 SCC 250 referred to Para 25
(2005) 3 SCC 284 referred to Para 25
D
[2017] 1 SCR 945 relied on Para 27
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.409 of 2020
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
E
With
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 104-114 of 2021
Tushar Mehta, SG, Mukul Rohatgi, V.K. Shukla, Dushyant Dave,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Garima Prashad, Kanu Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal, Ms.
Astha Deep, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ms. Devanshi Popat, Ms. Ranjeeta F
Rohatgi, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms. Samten Doma, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
G
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 409 of 2020)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) by the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeking Writ of Mandamus,
seeking appropriate directions, directing the respondent-State of Punjab
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A and the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab, to transfer
the criminal proceedings and trial in the Case Crime No.05 of 2019,
titled as State of Punjab v. Mukhtar Ansari, pending before the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab, to the Court of Special Judge
(MP/MLA), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh and with a further direction to
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to handover the custody of the accused /
B
3rd Respondent from Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, Punjab to District
Jail Banda, Uttar Pradesh.
2. The case of the petitioner-State, as averred in the Writ Petition,
is as follows:
C I. The 3rd Respondent herein, is sitting MLA from District Mau in
the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of the petitioner-State that
large number of criminal cases have been registered against the accused
/ Respondent No.3, namely Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari in various Districts
of the State of Uttar Pradesh in the past. Further, in addition to the same,
there are presently ten criminal cases pending trial against him. In
D pursuance of the directions, issued by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.699/2016, titled as Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., vide orders dated 10.09.2020 and 16.09.2020, all the
pending criminal cases against the MPs and MLAs, pending in various
Courts, have been transferred to the Special Court, constituted to deal
E with the cases of MPs and MLAs. The ten criminal cases, which are
pending trial against the accused / 3rd Respondent, were transferred
from various Districts to the Special Court and pursuant to the order
passed by the Special Court, the accused / 3rd Respondent was lodged in
District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, so as to be produced before the
Court, as and when required. Thereafter, every effort is made to fast
F track the cases and some cases have reached the stage of arguments.
II. It is the case of the petitioner-State that in view of the conspiracy,
hatched by the accused / 3rd Respondent, a Case in Crime No.05 of
2019 is registered against the 3rd Respondent for the offences punishable
under Sections 386 & 506 of the IPC on the file of Police Station Mathaur,
G District Mohali, State of Punjab. The said crime is registered based on
an anonymous call, allegedly made by one Ms. Rizwana Bano. Pursuant
to registration of Crime No.05 of 2019 in Police Station Mohali, Punjab,
on 19.01.2019, the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, Punjab issued a
production warrant under Section 267 of Cr.P.C., and in execution of the
same, Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh,
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 871
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

without seeking permission from the Special Court (MPs/MLAs), A
Allahabad gave custody of the accused / 3rd Respondent to the Judicial
Magistrate, Mohali, State of Punjab. Pursuant to a remand order, made
by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, Punjab, 3rd Respondent is lodged in
Roopnagar Jail, State of Punjab.
III. It is stated that the action taken by the Jail Superintendent, B
District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh was in violation of Section 267(2) of
Cr.P.C. and consequently, a departmental inquiry is initiated against him
and the same is pending.
IV. It is alleged that the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, Punjab,
instead of sending the accused / 3rd Respondent back to the District Jail, C
Banda, Uttar Pradesh, after he was produced in the Court, sent him to
the District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab on 24.01.2019 and since then, he is
continuing in the same Jail. It is stated that neither the Charge-sheet has
been filed nor the 3rd Respondent applied for default bail, as contemplated
under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
D
V. It is the case of the petitioner that the accused / 3rd Respondent
is making every effort to continue in the Jail at Punjab. Though, from the
last two years, number of warrants have been issued to bring the accused
/ 3rd respondent from Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, Punjab for production
before the various Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, all efforts made
by the Police were futile as every time the Jail Authorities refused to E
give custody on the pretext that the accused was unwell. The medical
reports dated 17.08.2019, 27.08.2019, 29.08.2019, 02.09.2019, 04.09.2019,
08.09.2019, 11.09.2019, 13.09.2019, 20.09.2019, 26.09.2019, 27.09.2019,
29.09.2019 and 02.10.2019 were prepared showing that the accused /
3rd respondent was unwell. Though the medical reports do not reveal
any serious ailments except ailments like diabetes, skin allergy, F
hypertension, backache, etc., but custody of the 3rd Respondent is denied
on such health grounds.
VI. It is alleged that though the State has made every effort to
produce the accused / 3rd Respondent before various Courts in the State
of Uttar Pradesh, where his appearance is required, it could not produce G
the 3rd Respondent as he was denied custody by the Jail Authorities at
Punjab and as such, production warrants are not being executed on one
pretext or the other.
VII. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that the accused / 3rd
Respondent is making every effort to continue his incarceration outside H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A the State of Uttar Pradesh (in Punjab) and is avoiding his presence in
the Special Court and other Courts, where number of criminal cases
have come up for appearance/trial/arguments.
3. Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the Superintendent of
District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab (1st Respondent) and the State of Punjab
B (2nd Respondent). While denying various allegations, made in the Writ
Petition, the case of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 is as under:
I.The Writ Petition, as filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
not maintainable, inasmuch as there is no infringement of fundamental
C rights of the petitioner-State of Uttar Pradesh and further, the Writ Petition
is also not maintainable under Section 406 of Cr.P.C. It is stated under
Section 406 of Cr.P.C. the transfer petition is maintainable only on the
application, made by the Attorney-General of India or by a party
interested, as such, the petitioner-State of Uttar Pradesh cannot maintain
a petition, as filed, seeking transfer of Case No.05 of 2019, pending
D
before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab to any other
Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
II. The accused / 3rd Respondent is presently confined in District
Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab in connection with the FIR No.05 of 2019 dated
08.01.2019 under Sections 386 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Mathaur,
E
District SAS Nagar (Mohali), State of Punjab. Learned Magistrate has
issued production warrants under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. and in view
of the said warrants, the accused was taken into custody from District
Jail, Banda, State of Uttar Pradesh on 22.01.2019 and is presently lodged
in District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab, pursuant to a remand order, passed
F by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab in the aforesaid
case on 24.01.2019.
III. It is stated that the said case is registered in view of the
complaint of Mr. Umang Jindal, C.E.O., Homeland Hights, Mohali,
Punjab, where it is alleged that there was a call from Mobile
G No.6390407709, demanding ransom of Rs.10 crores. As per the
information, the accused / 3rd Respondent has called him on 07.01.2019,
as such, the case was registered and he was taken into custody in
connection with the said case. Further, it is stated that the accused / 3 rd
Respondent Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari was also figured as an accused in
case FIR No.252 dated 26.11.2014 for the offences punishable under
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 873
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, on the file of P.S. Morinda and in A
connection with the said case, he is not yet arrested.
IV. It is stated that as per the jail records, 14 other cases are
pending against the accused / 3rd Respondent in different Courts in the
State of Uttar Pradesh and out of the said cases, in 06 cases, the
concerned Trial Courts have permitted the accused / 3rd Respondent to B
appear through video conferencing and the accused / 3rd Respondent is
already appearing in those cases. The details of cases against the
accused/3rd Respondent, pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh are given
in tabular form. Further, it is stated that vide order dated 10.02.2020, the
Presiding Officer, Special Court MPs/MLAs, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh
had desired to verify the report sent by the Jail Authorities, and had C
directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Affairs, State of Punjab
to constitute a committee of three doctors to evaluate the ailments of the
accused / 3rd Respondent. Pursuant to the same, a committee of doctors
was constituted and medical report was submitted vide letter dated
27.02.2020. Further, it is stated that the accused / 3rd Respondent / under- D
trial prisoner Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari, had been undergoing treatment at
the jail hospital and at other secondary and tertiary hospitals, from time
to time, since his date of admission to District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab
i.e. 24.01.2019. Details of medical examinations (date-wise) are furnished
in a tabular form.
E
V. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid reasons, the accused /
rd
3 Respondent could not be handed over to the petitioner-State of Uttar
Pradesh due to the specific advice of medical authorities / medical board
/ specialists, from time to time, and in view of the legal obligations on the
answering respondent, as per Section 269 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. While denying the allegation of conspiracy, it is stated that accused F
/ 3rd Respondent is lodged in Roopnagar Jail, State of Punjab, pursuant
to a case registered in Crime no.05 of 2019.
VI. It is stated that as per the record, available in the office of the
deponent, neither chargesheet has been submitted nor the accused / 3rd
Respondent has applied for bail. While denying that the deponent is bound G
to follow provisions under Section 269 of Cr.P.C., it is stated that in view
of the medical conditions of the accused / 3rd Respondent, he could not
be handed over to the petitioner-State of Uttar Pradesh.
With the aforesaid pleas, in the counter affidavit, Respondent Nos.1
and 2 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A 4. A separate counter affidavit is filed by the accused / 3rd
respondent Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari. While denying the various allegations
made in the Writ Petition, the case, as averred in the counter affidavit, is
as under:
I.The accused / Respondent No.3 is a sitting MLA from MAU
B Constituency from Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). On account of his long
political career, the ruling party in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has
acrimonious political rivalry against him. There were several attempts
on his life by the person inimically deposed against him, in view of political
affiliations, including Shri Brijesh Singh, who is currently a sitting MLA
from Ruling Party). The accused / 3rd Respondent has been in jail since
C 25.10.2005 i.e. over 15 years and is himself desirous of early and
expeditious disposal of trial in pending cases. He has been taken into
custody in connection with the case, registered in Crime No.05 of 2019
in Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, State of Punjab and pursuant
to a remand order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, he is
D remanded and presently lodged in Jail at Roopnagar in the State of Punjab
on 08.01.2019. He has won last three elections from jail, which goes to
show the support of the people in eastern Uttar Pradesh towards him.
Out of the pending ten cases, referred in the Writ Petition, he is already
granted permission to appear through video conferencing by the Trial
Court in nine cases and he is appearing regularly. For the remaining one
E case i.e. S.T. No.22 of 2005 (i.e. at Serial No.05 of the table at Page-
D), the application for permission to appear through video conferencing
is pending before the Special Court (MP/MLA). The status of each of
the cases, in the tabular form, is shown, and it is stated that he is regularly
appearing through video conferencing in trials in the State of Uttar
F Pradesh.
II. With reference to the allegations made in the Writ Petition, it is
stated that the Writ Petition, as filed, is not maintainable, inasmuch as
the rights, guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, are to ‘persons’ as against actions of the ‘State’, as such, the
G State of Uttar Pradesh cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article
32 of the Constitution of India. As he is continuously participating in the
pending cases in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner-State cannot
seek relief, as sought in the Writ Petition.
III. While referring to the provision under Section 406 of Cr.P.C.,
H it is stated that the said application can be maintained only at the instance
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 875
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

of the Attorney-General Of India or a party interested, as such, the A
present petitioner-State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be considered as a
party interested, so as to invoke power under Section 406 of Cr.P.C.
The Petitioner has suppressed various orders passed by the competent
Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh, granting permission to the accused
/ 3rd Respondent to appear through video conferencing, and sought relief,
B
as such, the same is to be rejected on the said grounds also.
IV. It is stated that the accused / 3rd Respondent is appearing
through video conferencing in all the cases, pending in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, even after after his incarceration in the jail at Punjab. He,
himself, is interested in an expeditious trial through video conferencing
so that all the false cases, filed against him, could be brought to an end. C

V. While referring to his appearance through video conferencing,
it is stated that three of the cases, where he has appeared through video
conferencing, are already acquitted. He is also permitted to appear
through video conferencing in new cases, lodged against him.
D
VI. With regard to his medical conditions, it is stated that he is
around 65 years old and is suffering from diseases like high blood pressure,
diabetes and also has undergone angiography. In view of his medical
conditions, the doctors and medical board, had advised him to take
complete rest for several months, which is also approved by PGI,
Chandigarh. E

VII. While referring to his political background, it is stated that he
has come from a respectable family and in view of political rivalry, there
have been several attempts on his life on multiple occasions. The counter
affidavit has referred to certain instances, where attacks were made on
him on 15.07.2001 & 13.01.2014. It is, further, stated that there is a F
political rivalry between Shri Brijesh Singh and the accused / 3 rd
Respondent, and the same is well known in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
It is, further, stated that there were open threats made by the members
of the ruling party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and it is alleged that the
political opponents of the petitioner were exerting pressure through G
various State Agencies to ensure that there was a constant interference
in the case of the respondent and hanging threats to his life. Referring to
certain complaints filed by him to various authorities, it is stated that in
view of the undue harassment, being caused to the members of his family,
his family members were constrained to move out of the State of Uttar
Pradesh on account of the malicious prosecutions being carried out. H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A VIII. It is stated that in view of the apprehension in the mind of
the accused / 3rd Respondent, he has also sought transfer of his cases
from the State of Uttar Pradesh and stated that every possible attempt
is made to inconvenience him.
IX. It is stated that in view of the threat to his life, as he is already
B permitted to appear through video conferencing by the competent Court,
there is no reason to seek transfer, as prayed for. Further, in view of the
threat to his life in all the trials, he is allowed to appear through video
conferencing and further, in view of the ailments, which he is suffering,
there is no merit in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-State to seek
transfer as prayed for. It is stated that he himself is interested in
C expeditious disposal of the cases and every attempt is made by him for
expeditious disposal of cases registered against him.
With the aforesaid averments in the counter affidavit, 3 rd
Respondent prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
6. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General,
D appearing for the petitioner and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior
counsel, appearing for Respondents 1 & 2; and Shri Mukul Rohatgi,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the 3rd Respondent.
7. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned senior counsel, has contended that
accused no.3 is involved in several cases, where serious charges of
murder, extortion, cheating, fraud and offences under Gangsters Act,
E
etc., are pending trial and all the cases are transferred to the Special
Court, constituted by the High Court of Allahabad, to try the cases of
MPs/MLAs. The learned Special Judge has ordered to incarcerate
respondent no.3 in District Jail, Banda ,Uttar Pradesh so that Respondent
No.3 could be produced before the Court on every date in each case
F and trials be concluded expeditiously. It is submitted that in connection
with the case in Crime No.05 of 2019, registered for offences punishable
under Sections 386 and 506 of the IPC on the file of Police Station
Mathaur, District Mohali in the State of Punjab, the Judicial Magistrate-
I, Mohali issued Production Warrant under Section 267 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and in view of the same, the Senior Superintendent
G of District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, without any approval / order from
the Court of Special Judge (MPs/MLAs), Allahabad, gave custody of
the 3rd Respondent, and the same was in utter disregard to the provision
under Section 267(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted
that learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, instead of sending back
H respondent No.3 to District Jail, Banda in Uttar Pradesh, sent him to
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 877
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab on 24.01.2019. It is submitted that large A
number of warrants have been issued by the Special Judge (MPs/MLAs)
Court and several Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh to bring 3rd
Respondent from District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab, but all efforts for
securing the custody of 3rd Respondent proved futile for the reason that
every time the Jail Superintendent refused to give custody of the 3rd
B
Respondent on the ground of ill health of the 3rd Respondent. The reports
of ill health do not indicate any severe ailment and only to avoid to give
his custody to the petitioner-State of Uttar Pradesh, such reports are
prepared.
8. It is submitted that the Writ Petition, filed by the State, is certainly
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the reason C
that the administration of Criminal Justice is bestowed upon the State on
behalf of the victims of crime and also, on the premise that a crime
against a citizen is a crime against the State. To maintain the petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel placed
reliance on the judgment in case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan1. D
Further, it is submitted that in any event, the petition is filed not only
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, but the same is filed under
Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that the
word “Party Interested”, used in Section 406 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is to be interpreted widely by giving wide connotation. It is
submitted that the words “Party Interested” are of a wide import, E
therefore, wider meaning is to be given to include the State also as much
as purpose of Criminal Justice Administration is to preserve and protect
the rule of law. To support his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance
on the judgments of this Court in the case of K. Anbazhagan v.
Superintendent of Police & Ors.2. F
9. It is, further, submitted that in any event, this Court may invoke
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete
justice, inasmuch as several cases involving the 3rd Respondent, with
serious charges, are under trial in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
10. It is, further, submitted that accused / Respondent no.3 is also
G
operating his illegal activities in the State of Uttar Pradesh from the Jail
in Punjab, inasmuch as on 05.04.2020, FIR No.04 of 2020 is registered
in Police Station Dakshin Tola, Mau, Uttar Pradesh for the offences
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Section 7
1
2016(7)SCC 1
2
2004 (3) SCC 767 H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the alleged medical ailments,
mentioned in the counter affidavits, are not of serious nature. Further, it
is submitted that the ailments shown in the medical reports by the
respondents are not new, he was having such ailments since the year
2008, and the same is evident from the medical certificate issued from
the Superintendent, District Jail, Gazipur. It is submitted that the transfer
B
of 3rd Respondent is imperative from District Jail, Roopnagar, State of
Punjab to District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh and the appearance through
video conferencing would not serve the purpose, in view of the fact that
the attendance could not be secured at several times in the past.
Resultantly, there is abnormal delay in the trials, pending in Special Court
C in Uttar Pradesh. The alleged threat of the 3rd Respondent to his life is
also unsustainable and cannot be a ground for not handing over custody
of the 3rd Respondent. The rivalry with another accused namely Shri
Brijesh Singh is without any substance, inasmuch as Shri Brijesh Singh
is also lodged in the Jail of Uttar Pradesh, since past more than 10 years.
Further, the 3rd Respondent had been safely lodged in the District Jail,
D Banda, Uttar Pradesh from the last more than fifteen years and he was
duly provided the required medical care.
11. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, at the outset, has contended that the petition, as
filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Article 32 of the Constitution
E of India read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
is not maintainable. It is submitted that the sole objective of Article 32 of
the Constitution of India is for enforcement of fundamental rights,
guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India, as such, the
petitioner, being a State, cannot agitate violation of fundamental rights,
guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. Learned senior
F
counsel, to support his contention, relied on judgment of this Court in
A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.3 and
judgment in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh4 and
judgment in the case of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v.
Commercial Tax Officer5 and judgment in the case of Coffee Board
G Bangalore v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer Madras6.
12. Further submissions of the learned senior counsel are that as
the case is at investigation stage, as such, the petitioner is virtually seeking
3
1986(2)SCC 667
4
1963(1)SCR 778
5
1964(4)SCR 99
H 6
1969(3)SCC 349
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 879
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

transfer of investigation from one police station to another in the country A
and the same is impermissible. To support this contention, reliance is
also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chander
Singh Sagar (DR.) v. State of Tamil Nadu7. Further, by referring to
Section 406 of the Cr.P.C., it is submitted by the learned senior counsel
that this Court’s power to act under this Section is confined to cases,
B
where the application is filed by the Attorney-General of India or by a
Party Interested. It is submitted that in absence of any such application
by the Attorney-General of India or Party Interested, petitioner-State
cannot seek transfer even under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is
submitted that the petitioner also cannot seek invoking of Article 142 of
the Constitution of India by this Court, inasmuch as no direction can be C
issued, which will run contrary to the substantive statutory provisions.
13. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
3rd Respondent has contended that the writ petition, as filed by the
petitioner-State of Uttar Pradesh is not maintainable, inasmuch as the
petitioner-State cannot complain violation of any fundamental rights, as D
guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is submitted
that none of the victims/complainants have approached this Court seeking
the relief, in absence of which, the petitioner-State is not entitled for the
relief, as sought for. It is submitted that the fair trial, guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is meant to protect the interest of
accused and the witnesses and it is not open for the State to allege that E
fair trial requires custodial presence of the accused/3rd Respondent.
Further, referring to provisions under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it is also submitted that only in cases where application is
filed by the Attorney-General of India or by a Party Interested, this
Court can act under Section 406 of Cr.P.C., but not at the instance of the F
State. It is submitted that the powers under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India also cannot be utilised to take away a citizen’s fundamental
rights. It is submitted that Respondent No.3 is lodged in Jail since 2005,
as such, no delay can be attributed to him for delaying the trials. Further,
it is submitted that the 3rd Respondent is regularly appearing through
video conferencing in cases mentioned by the petitioner, as such, there G
is no impediment for proceeding with the trials. It is submitted that in
view of the political rivalry and serious threats to the 3rd Respondent,
this Court may not grant any relief, as prayed for. It is submitted that not
only the 3rd Respondent, all the family members of the 3rd Respondent
7
1978(2)SCC 35 H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A are harassed by registering false cases. Lastly, it is submitted that the 3rd
Respondent may be permitted to continue to appear through video
conferencing in all the trials, which are pending trial in the State of Uttar
Pradesh and this Writ Petition, which is devoid of merits, be dismissed.
14. We have considered submissions made by the learned counsels
B on both the sides and perused the material available on record.
15. The 3rd Respondent/accused is sitting MLA in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of the petitioner-State that, he is involved in
several cases where serious charges are framed against him, and several
such cases were transferred to Special Court, constituted to try the cases
of MPs/MLAs in Allahabad. It is specifically stated in the petition that in
C
order to fast track the cases, after creation of Special Court for trial of
cases of MPs/MLAs in the year 2018, all the cases were consolidated
by the High Court of Allahabad. The 3rd Respondent was lodged in
District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, pursuant to order of the learned
Special Judge. The cases which are at the stage of trial, as stated in the
D writ petition, by indicating the status of the case is given in a tabular
form which reads as under:

Sl. P.S./District CASE No. SECTIONS STATUS OF
No. CASE
1. South Tola, Mau 399/2010, 302, 307, 120 &, 34 IPC Argument
E S.T. No.130/2010 25/27 Arms Act & 7 CLA
2. South Tola, Mau 891/2010 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act Framing of
S.T. No. 6200002/2012 Charges
3. Mohammadabad, 1182/2009 307, 506, 120B IPC Evidence
Ghazipur S.T. No.10/2010
4. Mohammadabad, 1051/2007 3(1) Gangster Act Evidence
Ghazipur S.T. No. 6200090/2012
F
5. Mohammadabad, 263/1990 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC Framing of
Ghazipur S.T. No.22/2005 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act Charges
6. Bhelupur, 377/1997 506 IPC (Rs.1.25 crore extortion Framing of
Varanasi S.T. No.3541/2011 case) Charges
7. Chetganj, 229/1991 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC For Evidence
Varanasi S.T. No.265/2007
G 8. Karanda, 482/2010 3(1) Gangster Act Evidence
Ghazipur S.T. No.557/2012
9. Kotwali, 192/1996 3(1) Gangster Act Evidence
Ghazipur S.T. No. 620007/2012
10. Tarwa, 20/2014 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 120B, Framing of
Azamgarh S.T. No. 6200195/2018 506 IPC & 7 CLA Charges
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 881
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

When the aforesaid cases were in trial, it appears, a case is A
registered in Crime No.05 of 2019 in Police Station Mathaur, District
Mohali, State of Punjab, under Sections 386 & 506 of the IPC. The
concerned Judicial Magistrate issued a production warrant under Section
267 of the Cr.P.C., and it is stated that pursuant to the same, he was
released from the custody by the Superintendent of District Jail, Banda,
B
Uttar Pradesh without any counter signature / permission from the Court
of Special Judge (MPs/MLAs), Allahabad. Thereafter, he was produced
before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab and was
remanded to District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab on 24.01.2019, since then,
he is continuing in the said jail. It is stated that during the period from
14.02.2019 to 14.02.2020, large number of warrants have been issued C
for production of the 3rd Respondent, who is lodged in District Jail
Roopnagar, Punjab to produce before the various Courts in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, but, efforts made by Uttar Pradesh Police to secure the
custody of the 3rd Respondent were futile inasmuch as, every time Jail
Authorities of Roopnagar Jail, Punjab refused to give custody on the
D
pretext that the accused was unwell. It appears that various medical
reports are made basis to deny the custody to the Uttar Pradesh Police.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that number of warrants issued
against the 3rd Respondent in connection with the crimes registered in
various Police Stations in Uttar Pradesh during the period from 14.02.2019
to 14.02.2020 could not be executed as the Jail Authorities of Roopnagar E
Jail, Punjab have refused to give custody on the ground that the accused
/ 3rd Respondent is not medically fit. Date of issuing of warrants in
connection with several cases in various crimes in Police Stations of
Uttar Pradesh; and reasons for non-production are also stated in the
petition, in a tabular form, which reads as under:
F
DATE OF DUE DATE FOR S.T. NO. / CASE REASON FOR NON-PRODUCTION
ISSUE OF B- THE ACCUSED CRIME
WARRANT TO APPEAR NO./P.S.
14.02.2019 21.02.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
07.03.2019 08.03.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically G
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
28.03.2019 30.03.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau

H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A DATE OF DUE DATE FOR S.T. NO. / CASE REASON FOR NON-PRODUCTION
ISSUE OF B- THE ACCUSED CRIME
WARRANT TO APPEAR NO./P.S.
10.04.2019 11.04.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
29.04.2019 30.04.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
B 399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
22.06.2019 24.06.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
27.06.2019(sic) 28.06.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
C 04.07.2019 05.07.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
20.07.2019 22.07.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
23.07.2019 26.07.2019 130/10 Accused suffering from diabetes mellitus,
D 399/10 PIVD, Skin allergy, Hypertension.
South Tola, Mau
17.07.2019 22.07.2019 130/10 Accused having high grade fever, sore
399/10 throat, backache & chest pain.
South Tola, Mau
27.07.2019 30.07.2019 130/10 Accused suffering from diabetes mellitus,
399/10 PIVD, Skin allergy, Hypertension, severe
E South Tola, Mau backache, high grade fever, sore throat,
backache,chest pain
30.07.2019 01.08.2019 130/10 Accused got slip in bathroom and
399/10 suffering from injury on his back and
South Tola, Mau unable to walk
02.08.2019 05.08.2019 130/10 Accused suffering from Diabetes mellitus,
399/10 PIVD, Skin allergy, Hypertension, needs
South Tola, Mau bedrest till 25.08.19.
F 05.08.2019 08.08.2019 130/10 Court informed that accused not medically
399/10 fit. Unwell
South Tola, Mau
10.08.2019 25.08.2019 130/10 Accused not medically fit.
399/10
South Tola, Mau
17.08.2019 25.08.2019 130/10 Accused not medically fit.
G 399/10
27.08.2019 02.10.2019 130/10 Accused not medically fit.
399/12
02.10.2019 12.10.2019 130/10 Accused examined by Board of Doctors
399/14 (sic) at Civil Hospital Roopnagar.
Prescribed medication and strict bed rest
from 03.10.19 to 02.01.2020. Difficulty
bearing weight on legs.
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 883
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

DATE OF DUE DATE FOR S.T. NO. / CASE REASON FOR NON-PRODUCTION A
ISSUE OF B- THE ACCUSED CRIME
WARRANT TO APPEAR NO./P.S.
12.10.2019 22.10.2019 130/10 Accused not medically fit and advised bed
399/15 rest.
26.10.2019 04.11.2019 130/10 Accused not medically fit and advised bed
399/15 rest.
01.11.2019 02.01.2020 130/10 Accused not medically fit and advised bed B
399/16 rest.
03.01.2020 13.01.2020 3541/12 Accused not medically fit and advised bed
377/98 rest.
27.01.2020 07.02.2020 3541/12 Accused having severe backache. Advised
377/99 bedrest w.e.f. 21.01.2020 to 20.04.2020
07.02.2020 10.02.2020 3541/12 Accused advised three months bed rest by C
377/99 Neurology, PGIMER Chandigarh
14.02.2020 17.02.2020 3541/12 Accused advised bedrest w.e.f. 21.01.2020
377/100 to 20.04.2020 by Neurology, PGIMER

By referring to reasons indicated in the above chart, it is the case
of the petitioner that the reasons assigned for not giving the custody are
not true and only at the instance of the 3rd Respondent, by referring to D
minor ailments such as diabetes mellitus, skin allergy, hypertension,
backache, throat infection, etc. the Uttar Pradesh Police has denied the
custody, only to protract the trials, which are pending in Special Court
constituted for trial of MPs/MLAs in Allahabad. It is specifically pleaded
by the petitioner-State that though crime No.05 of 2019 was registered
on 08.01.2019 by the Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, State of E
Punjab, no Final Report is submitted by completing the investigation within
the statutory period, even then, the 3rd Respondent has not chosen to
apply for grant of bail, so as to avoid his appearance in various cases in
the State of Uttar Pradesh.
16. On the other hand, respondent-State as well as the 3 rd F
Respondent is contesting the maintainability of this petition, filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India and Section 406 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the petitioner, being a State,
cannot complain of violation of any fundamental rights, guaranteed under
Part-III of the Constitution of India, so as to seek relief by filing the G
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. So also is the case
of the respondents that this petition also is not maintainable under Section
406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the case of the respondents
that power under Section 406 of Cr.P.C. is conferred on this Court to
transfer cases and appeals, only in the event of an application by the
Attorney-General of India or by a party interested. H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A 17. This petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter
XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a chapter dealing with
Transfer of Criminal Cases. Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 reads as under:
B “406.Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.–
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that
an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice,
it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred
from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal
Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court
C of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High
Court.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the
application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party
interested, and every such application shall be made by
D motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-
General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be
supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers
conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may,
E if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious,
order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any
person who has opposed the application such sum not
exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate
in the circumstances of the case.”
F 18. From a plain reading of the aforesaid Section 406 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is clear that power is conferred on this
Court to transfer of cases and appeals on the application filed by the
Attorney-General of India or by a party interested. According to the
learned senior counsels, appearing for the respondents, the petitioner-
State cannot be termed as a “party interested”. It is difficult to accept
G
the submissions of the respondents to say that the petitioner-State is not
a party interested. It is well said that a crime against an individual is to
be considered as a crime against a State and public, at large. In the
criminal administration system, State is the prosecuting agency, working
for and on behalf of the people of the State. It is to be noticed that “party
H interested” has not been defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 885
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

1973. The words “party interested” are of a wide import and, therefore, A
have to be interpreted by giving a wider meaning. The words such as
“aggrieved party”, “party to the proceedings” and “party interested” are
used in various Statutes. If the words used are to the effect “party to the
proceedings” or “party to a case”, it can be given a restricted meaning.
In such cases, the intention of the legislature is clear to give restricted
B
meaning. But, at the same time, the words used as “party interested”,
which are not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, have to be
given a wider meaning. As a prosecuting agency in the Criminal
Administration, the State can be said to be a party interested within the
meaning of Section 406(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It
is a well settled principle of law that the Statute must be interpreted to C
advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same. The
petitioner-State, being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal
Administration, is vitally interested in such administration, as such, we
are of the view that the State is considered as a “party interested” within
the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 406 of the Code. The judgment
D
of this Court in the case of K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police
& Ors.2 also supports the case of the petitioner-State to accept the said
plea that they are party interested within the meaning of Section 406(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, we hold that this petition, as
filed under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is maintainable.
19. Inasmuch as, we are of the view that this petition, as filed E
under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is maintainable at
the instance of the State, it is not necessary for us to decide the issue as
to maintainability of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.
20. Nextly, we proceed to examine on the plea of the petitioner F
for grant of reliefs, as prayed for in the Writ Petition. Reliefs, as sought
for in the Writ Petition under Para-26(A) of the same, the petitioner is
seeking directions, commanding the respondent-State and the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab to transfer the criminal proceedings
and trial in the case no.05 of 2019, titled as State of Punjab v. Mukhtar
G
Ansari, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali. Further, under
Para-26(B) of the Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking directions,
directing the Respondents 1 & 2, to hand over the custody of the 3 rd
Respondent from Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, State of Punjab, so as
to keep him in District Jail, Banda in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Opposing
relief sought for in the writ petition, while contesting on the maintainability, H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A it is also the case of the respondents that as no case is registered so far
in any competent Court of law and as a crime registered in case no.05
of 2019 is at the stage of investigation, no relief can be granted in exercise
of power under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Learned counsel Shri Dushyant Dave, appearing for the respondents 1
& 2, has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ram Chander
B
Singh Sagar (DR.) v. State of Tamil Nadu7. In the aforesaid judgment,
this Court has held that the Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this
Court with power under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate
to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto.
C But, it does not clothe this Court with the power to transfer at the stage
of investigation.
21. Even, according to the case of the petitioner, that in crime
no.05 of 2019, registered on the file of Police Station Mathaur, District
Mohali, State of Punjab, for offences punishable under Sections 386 and
D 506 of the IPC, no Final Report is filed by the Police and the case is at
the stage of investigation. A copy of FIR is placed on record in which
FIR number is mentioned as FIR No.05 and it was registered on
08.01.2019. As the investigation in crime no.05 of 2019 on the file of
Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, State of Punjab is still at the
stage of investigation and in absence of filing of Final Report, we are in
E
agreement with the submissions of the learned senior counsel, appearing
for the respondents that no case is made out by the petitioner, seeking
transfer under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
relief is sought for in Para-26(A) of the writ petition. The judgment of
this Court in the case of Ram Chander Singh Sagar (DR.) v. State of
F Tamil Nadu7, relied on by Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the respondents, supports the case of the respondents.
The relevant portion of the said judgment, reads as under:
“The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court with
power under Section 406 to transfer a case or appeal from
G one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to
another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto. But it
does not clothe this Court with the power to transfer
investigations from one police station to another in the country
simply because the first information or a remand report is
forwarded to a Court. The application before us stems from a
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 887
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

misconception about the scope of Section 406. There is as yet A
no case pending before any Court as has been made clear in
the counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the light
of this counter affidavit, nothing can be done except to dismiss
this petition.”
In view of the aforesaid reasoning of ours, no relief can be B
granted, as sought for under Para-26(A) of the writ petition, by this
Court in exercise of power under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
22. At the same time, learned Solicitor General, Shri Tushar Mehta,
appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if, at all, no relief is to be C
granted by this Court in exercise of power under Section 406 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, it is evidently a fit case to exercise power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by this Court, having regard
to the facts of the case, to do complete justice. It is submitted that more
than ten criminal cases involving the 3rd Respondent for serious offences
are at various stages of trial before the Special Court constituted for trial D
of cases of MPs/MLAs in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In spite of the
same, the custody of the 3rd Respondent is taken pursuant to one case,
registered in the State of Punjab and presently and continuously, he is
lodged in the Roopnagar Jail in the State of Punjab since 24.01.2019. It
is submitted that apart from the aforesaid cases, which are pending trial E
in the Special Court constituted for trial of MPs/MLAs in Allahabad, in
various crimes, registered against the 3rd Respondent in several police
stations in the State of Uttar Pradesh, warrants are returned and
unexecuted for one reason or the other. It is submitted that by showing
minor ailments, the custody of the 3rd Respondent is denied by the Jail
Superintendent of Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, Punjab. It is, further, F
submitted that though in the crime registered in Crime No.05 of 2019 on
the file of Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, State of Punjab, which
is registered for offences punishable under Sections 386 & 506 of the
IPC, there is no progress in the investigation and Final Report is not
submitted yet, even then the 3rd Respondent has not even applied for G
grant of default bail, as he is entitled to. It is submitted that the very
conduct of the 3rd Respondent indicates that he is trying to protract the
trials which are pending in Special Court for MPs/MLAs in the State of
Uttar Pradesh and to avoid his appearance in other Courts, where his
presence is required.
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A 23. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, appearing for
Respondents 1 & 2 and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the 3rd Respondent, strenuously contended that no case is
made out for grant of any relief by this Court, invoking the power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that though Article
142 of the Constitution of India gives wider power to this Court and not
B
restricted by statutory enactments, however, this Court would not pass
any order under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which would
amount to supplanting the substantive law applicable or ignoring the
statutory provisions dealing with the subject. In support of this argument,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents, relied on judgments
C of this Court in the case of A.B. Bhaskara Rao v. CBI8 and in the case
of State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi9.
24. Learned Solicitor General, Shri Tushar Mehta, appearing for
the petitioner-State, submitted that though all the cases were transferred
to Special Court, constituted for trial of cases of MPs/MLAs, Allahabad
D to fast track the same, continuation of the 3rd Respondent in jail, which is
at far off place in a different State, has become an impediment to proceed
with the trials. It is submitted that in addition to the pending trials in the
Special Court against the 3rd Respondent, the appearance of the 3rd
Respondent is also necessary in connection with various other cases,
where serious charges are leveled against the 3rd Respondent, which
E
are at the stage of investigation in several police stations in the State of
Uttar Pradesh and in spite of the same, warrants issued by the competent
Court are returned by Jail Superintendent of Roopnagar Jail, Punjab,
every time by showing the ill health of the 3rd Respondent. To substantiate
his plea that it is a fit case to invoke power by this Court under Article
F 142 of the Constitution of India, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General, appearing for the petitioner-State, has placed reliance on
judgments of this Court in the Case of Saihba Ali v. State of
Maharashtra10, in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.11 and in the case of Asha Ranjan
G v. State of Bihar12.

8
2011 (10) SCC 259
9
2004 (12) SCC 322
10
2003 (7) SCC 250
11
2005 (3) SCC 284
12
H 2017 (4) SCC 397
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 889
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

25. Having considered the submission of the learned Solicitor A
General, appearing for the petitioner-State, as well as learned senior
counsels, appearing for the respondents, on the plea that whether it is a
fit case to invoke power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or
not, we have carefully considered the submissions and the material placed
on record and we are of the considered view that it is evidently a fit case
B
to invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for
grant of relief to the extent, as sought for, under Para-26(B) of the petition,
to order transfer the custody of the 3rd Respondent from Roopnagar Jail,
District Ropar, Punjab to District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh. It is not in
dispute that with regard to the cases and status, which are pending trial
before the Special Judge, MPs/MLAs, Allahabad, a perusal of the chart C
which is furnished by the petitioner, indicates that the 3rd Respondent is
involved in various cases of attempt to murder, murder, cheating,
conspiracy, etc., apart from offences under Gangsters Act. The said
cases, as mentioned by the petitioner, number in Ten, are various stages
of trial. Further, the petitioner has furnished the cases, where warrants
D
were issued by the Courts in various crimes, registered in the Districts
of Mau, etc., and when the police went to seek custody, the 1st respondent
had refused to handover the custody on medical grounds. The reasons
for non-production are mentioned in a tabular form. During the period
from 14.02.2019 to 14.02.2020, custody is denied to the police of Uttar
Pradesh by the 1st Respondent on twenty six occasions. A perusal of the E
reasons for not giving custody shows that it is mainly on the medical
grounds referring to diabetes mellitus, skin allergy, hypertension,
backache, throat infection, etc. Though, it is the case of the petitioner,
that the very registration of crime in Crime no.05 of 2019 on the file of
Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab is a part of conspiracy at
F
the instance of the 3rd Respondent so as to continue in the jail at Punjab,
by protracting the trials, which are pending in the Special Court and to
deny his presence in various other crimes, registered against him for
completing the investigation. We do not wish to record any finding on
such allegation of conspiracy at this stage, but, at the same time, we are
satisfied that the custody is denied to the Police of Uttar Pradesh at G
every time on trivial grounds under guise of medical grounds by mentioning
ordinary diseases like diabetes mellitus, skin allergy, hypertension,
backache, throat infection, etc. In addition to the same, it gives any
amount of suspicion on the conduct of the 3rd Respondent in not even
applying for grant of default bail, for not filing Final Report (Charge-
H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A sheet) by the Police, Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab
within the statutory period. Though, it is the case of the 3rd Respondent,
opposing the relief sought for, on the ground that he is permitted in majority
of the cases to appear by video conferencing, but the same, by itself, is
no ground to oppose the relief sought for. Though, the earlier cases
were pending in various Sessions Courts and only to fast track the cases,
B
Special Court is constituted for trial of cases of MPs/MLAs in the year
2018 by the State of Uttar Pradesh. On such constitution, all the cases
where the 3rd Respondent is involved for serious offences under IPC
and Gangsters Act, were transferred to the Special Court and all are
pending trial at various stages. Pursuant to the orders of the Special
C Court, only the 3rd Respondent was kept in jail at Banda in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, so as to order his presence, as and when required.
Therefore, in our opinion, a convict or an undertrial prisoner, who disobeys
the law of the land, cannot oppose his transfer from one prison to another,
be a convict or an undertrial prisoner, Courts are not to be a helpless
D bystander, when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity. In
such situations, this Court can exercise power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to order transfer of prisoner from one prison to
another. Though, there is a separate enactment called The Transfer of
Prisoners Act, 1950, which permits transfer of a prisoner from one State
to another by the Government, but, the same is circumscribed under
E Section 3 of the Act, as such, the claim of the petitioner will not fit into
the same. Even then this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, can consider for transfer of the prisoner in
the circumstances, as pleaded by the petitioner. The arms of law are
long enough to remedy the situation. If there are any medical ailments to
F the petitioner, every care shall be taken by the Jail Authorities but, at the
same time, on the spacious plea of ill health by referring to minor ailments,
the accused / 3rd Respondent cannot oppose the relief, as sought for in
the writ petition. It is true that in the case of A.B. Bhaskara Rao v.
CBI8 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi9, this Court
has held that in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution
G of India, no order can be passed, which shall run contrary to the statute
or statutory rules. The transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another
prison in different States is covered by the provisions of The Transfer of
Prisoners Act, 1950. Section 3 of the Act reads as “the Government of
that State with the consent of the Government of any other State, by
H order, provide for removal of the prisoner from that prison to any
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 891
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

prison in the other State.” It is clear that there does not appear to be A
any provision for transfer of an under trial prisoner. There being no
statutory provision, covering the transfer of prisoner from one State to
another, having regard to the facts of the case on hand, this Court, certainly
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
may issue necessary directions in the given circumstances. The judgments
B
relied on by the learned counsels for the respondents, as referred above,
would not render any support to their plea in this case. In the judgment in
the case of Saihba Ali v. State of Maharashtra10, it is held that this
Court can pass appropriate on the facts to do complete justice, even if
the writ petition filed is not maintainable. Transfer of a prisoner from
one State to another State also fell for consideration by this Court, in the C
case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav
& Anr.11, where this Court has held that power to transfer a prisoner or
detenu, either on his own motion or otherwise, can be ordered by this
Court, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India. Para 23, 24 & 25 of the said judgment, which are relevant
D
paragraphs to this case, read as under:
“……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 E
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 F
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 gain flouted
the law even while he was in custody and sometimes even
when he was on bail. We must note herein with all seriousness G
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 H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A 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.
2413*. The matter relating to inter-State transfer of prisoners
is governed by the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. Section 3
B of the said Act reads thus:
‘3. Removal of prisoners from one State to another.–(1)
Where any person is confined in a prison in a State,–
(a) under sentence of death, or

C (b) under, or in lieu of, a sentence of
imprisonment or transportation, or
(c) in default of payment of a fine, or
(d) in default of giving security for keeping the peace
or for maintaining good behaviour;
D
the Government of that State may, with the consent of the
Government of any other State, by order, provide for the
removal of the prisoner from that prison to any prison in the
other State.’
25. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would
E clearly go to show that there does not exist any provision for
transfer of an undertrial prisoner. The prayer for inter-State
transfer of a detenu came up for consideration before this
Court in David Patrick Ward v. Union of India14 where in a
preventive detention matter the petitioner therein was lodged
F in Naini Jail at Allahabad. The petitioner made a prayer for
his transfer to Tihar Jail, Delhi inter alia on the ground that
the Consular Officers had the right to visit a national of the
sending State who is in prison or under detention in terms of
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The authorities of Naini Jail having indicated that whenever
G visits are desired by the officers of the British Consular
Relations, proper arrangement therefor would be made, this
Court refused to concede to the said request. But, this decision
13*
Ed. Para 24 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.F.3/Ed.B.J./25/2005 dated
18-3-2005.
H 14
(1992) 4 SCC 154 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 814
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 893
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

is a pointer to the fact that in an appropriate case, such request A
can also be made by an undertrial prisoner or a detenu and
there being no statutory provisions contrary thereto, this Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution may issue necessary direction.”
26. The concept of fair trial and transfer of a prisoner from one B
jail to another jail is also considered elaborately by this Court in the case
of Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar12. While analysing the concept of fair
trial as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court held
that it covers interest of the accused, prosecution and the victim. It is,
further, held that victim may be a singular person who has suffered, but
the injury suffered by singular is likely to affect the community interest. C
The relevant paragraphs of the judgment covered by Paragraphs 86.4,
86.5, 86.6 & 86.7 reads as under:
“…86.4. The weighing of balance between the two
perspectives in case of fair trial would depend upon
the facts and circumstances weighed on the scale D
of constitutional norms and sensibility and larger
public interest.
86.5. Section 3 of the 1950 Act does not create an
impediment on the part of the Court to pass an order
of transfer of an accused or a convict from one jail E
in a State to another prison in another State because
it creates a bar on the exercise of power on the
executive only.
86.6. The Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of
the Constitution cannot curtail the fundamental F
rights of the citizens conferred under the Constitution
and pass orders in violation of substantive provisions
which are based on fundamental policy principles,
yet when a case of the present nature arises, it may
issue appropriate directions so that criminal trial is G
conducted in accordance with law. It is the obligation
and duty of this Court to ensure free and fair trial.
86.7 The submission that this Court in exercise of equity
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
cannot transfer the accused from Siwan Jail to any
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A other jail in another State is unacceptable as the
basic premise of the said argument is erroneous,
for while addressing the issue of fair trial, the Court
is not exercising any kind of jurisdiction in equity.”
27. In addition to the reasons which we have already assigned
B above, the case law, which is referred above by the learned Solicitor
General, appearing for the petitioner, also supports the case of the
petitioner for grant of relief to the extent as sought for in Para-26(B) of
the writ petition.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, as indicated above, this Writ Petition
C is allowed in part with the following directions and observations:
i. This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India / Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
is held to be maintainable under Section 406 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
D ii. The relief, sought for transfer of the case, in terms of of
Para-26(A) of this petition is not granted, inasmuch as the
case in Crime No.05 of 2019, on the file of Police Station
Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab, is at the stage of
investigation, as such, Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be
E pressed into service.
iii. At the same time, in exercise of power under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, we issue directions, directing
the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, to handover custody of the 3rd
Respondent to the State of Uttar Pradesh, within a period
F of two weeks from today, so as to lodge him in District Jail,
Banda in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
iv. It is open for the Special Court, constituted for MPs/MLAs
at Allahabad to continue him either in the District Jail at
Banda or shift to any other Jail in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
if any need arises.
G
v. There shall be a direction to the Superintendent of Jail,
District Jail Banda, Uttar Pradesh to extend the necessary
medical facilities to the 3rd Respondent. It is made clear
that if any specialty treatment is required to the 3rd
Respondent, the Jail Superintendent of District Jail, Banda,
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) 895
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary steps to extend such A
medical care also, by following the Jail Manual.
[Transfer Petition (Crl.) no.104-114 of 2021]
29. In view of the above order passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.409
of 2020 and further, this Court has already rejected the claim of the
petitioner for transfer of the cases, as such, we do not find any merit in B
these Transfer Petitions, and the same are accordingly dismissed.

Nidhi Jain Writ Petition partly allowed and
Transfer Petitions dismissed.
C

D

E

F

G

H