CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Safety of Prisoners Paramount, No Compelling Reason for Transfer: Karnataka HC Denies Consolidation of Inmates at Bangalore Central Prison

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed a writ petition filed by several inmates seeking transfer to Bangalore Central Prison. The petitioners, facing charges in a criminal case, sought consolidation at a single prison for alleged safety concerns and to facilitate easier access to legal counsel, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Facts and Issues: The petitioners were dispersed across various prisons following an order by a lower court, based on recommendations by the National Investigating Agency (NIA). This transfer was due to security concerns after one of the accused expressed intentions to turn approver, increasing the risk of intra-prison violence. The petitioners claimed that their safety was at risk in their current facilities and that they faced difficulties in accessing legal counsel.

Court’s Assessment: The court found no compelling reason for the transfer, given the state’s measures for prisoner security and legal communication. It highlighted the state's duty to ensure the safety of all prisoners. The court was not persuaded by the petitioners' argument regarding the attack in the Central Jail, Dharwad against one Suleiman, noting that this incident did not directly involve the petitioners. The court acknowledged the state's assurance that it would ensure the safety of all prisoners and directed enhancement of video conferencing facilities in prisons for better legal access, including the provision of headphones to maintain privacy during consultations.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court rejected the request for the consolidation of the petitioners in Bangalore Central Prison. It emphasized the need to balance security needs with prisoners' rights and directed the State to improve legal communication facilities in prisons and to ensure the protection of all inmates.

Date of Decision: 19th March 2024

ABDUL BASHEER & Others VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PRISONS) & Others

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:15 AM
Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:14 AM
Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:13 AM
Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:12 AM
Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:11 AM
Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 6:35 AM
Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones