ORDER
Mridula Mishra, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State as well as the Superintendent, Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved as he was handcuffed by police personnel during transit from jail to court in the clear violation of the direction of Supreme Court in a decision (Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration).
3. Petitioner’s counsel was submitted that the condition which has been mentioned in this decision for handcuffing any accused while being transmitted from jail to Court or Court to jail, was not present there. The party of the constables which was accompanying the petitioner did not file any such petition before the Magistrate that either the petitioner is aggravated, he has enhanced threat or there was any apprehension that he may escape, which are the condition precedent for handcuffing. In this circumstance, the action of police personnel is in clear violation of direction of the Supreme Court.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Superintendent; Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna as well as respondent No. 1, State which has been represented by the Senior Superintendent of police, Patna. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, it has been stated that as per the provision in the Bihar Police Manual, handcuffing can be done if the accused of non bailable offence attempts to escape or has been taken in custody or is supposed to give trouble if the journey is long or number of prisoner is large. It has also been stated that the Senior Superintendent of Police personally conducted an inquiry and came to conclusion that on the alleged date, i.e. 1-2-2006, the petitioner was excited, agitated and was giving threatening to the constable which was sufficient for apprehension that the accused may escape.
5. I find that the statement which has been made in the counter-affidavits, is not convincing as the police personnel who escorted the petitioner during transit from jail to Court did not make any such report either before Senior Officials or before the Magistrate on the particular date. Subsequently, when this Court directed to file counter-affidavit, and an Inquiry was conducted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, the member of escorting party has come with this defence.
6. However, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to 1-2-2006, handcuffing of the petitioner has not been reported during transit from jail to the Court.
7. Considering all these facts, this application is being disposed of, in terms of this direction to the respondents, not to handcuff the petitioner in violation of clear direction of the Supreme Court , (Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration) only after deserving the conditions mentioned therein in this decision and only when any such condition is prevalent, it can be done after reporting the Senior Officials as well as taking permission from the Court.
8. With this observation/direction, this application is disposed of.