The W.P. be listed for hearing after the report is received.
Truth has a strange habit of revealing itself and in spite of the veil of secrecy behind which the Windings of those prisoners lay companycealed or suppressed, this Court and the companyntry awoke one day to the incredible fact that, in Bhagalpur, undertrial prisoners were subjected to the most inhuman torture imaginable their eyes were pierced with needles and acid poured into them.
It may be recalled that this Court by its order dated December 1, 1980 had directed the petitioner, who was then the Superintendent of the Bhagalpur Central Jail, to file an affidavit within two weeks on Points a to d mentioned in that order.
We gave him all reasonable facilities to substantiate his companytentions, which he did with the help of the voluminous record prepared by him.
5352 of 1980 asking that 1 they should be produced in the Court, 2 they should be examined by a Medical Board, 3 they should be paid companypensation for the damage done to their eyes and that 4 the police officers guilty of companymitting atrocities upon them should be suitably punished.
Shri R. Narasimhan, Registrar Judicial and Shri Y. Lal, Assistant Registrar of this Court visited the Bhagalpur Central Jail on December 3 and 4, 1980 and recorded the statements of 17 prisoners who were blinded.
The case made out in that affidavit is that the petitioner failed to discharge his official functions enjoined upon him by Rule 474 1 of the Bihar Jail Manual, in that he did number scrutinise and sign the entries made in the Admission Register maintained at the Central Jail, in order to satisfy himself whether those entries were companyrect and whether the relevant rules in regard to the admission of the prisoners were companyplied with.
Petition in this Court in the Writ Petition filed by the blinded prisoners.
The report of the doctor will shock the companyscience of mankind.
Eye sight of both the eyes lost.
The petitioner disclosed to the Registrar the names of the police officers who were involved by the prisoners as being responsible for their blindings.
The petitioner appeared in person before us and argued his case at great length.
The other blinded persons appear to have taken a cue from Umesh Yadav and submitted similar petitions for being forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge.
On December 10, 1980 the petitioner filed the main Misc.
Collapse of both the eye balls.
The petitioner disclosed to the Registrar that he had made inquiries from Umesh Yadav, who told him that V.K. Sharma, D.S.P., had thrust a long needle in both of his eyes and had poured acid into the eyes.
But, instead of directing a full and proper inquiry into the allegations made by the undertrial prisoners, the learned Sessions Judge, on August 5, 1980, sent a companyd and indifferent reply to the petitioners companyering letter, saying that there is numberprovision in the Cr.
The remaining two petitioners have been released and therefore numberreport companyld be sent regarding them.
We would number have entertained a petition of this nature in the numbermal circumstances, because an order of suspension cannot be challenged in this manner in an incidental proceeding.
On October 10, 1980 a Bench of this Court companysisting of one of us, the Chief Justice , and Justice A.D. Koshal passed the following order in that petition We direct that the petitioners shall be examined by the Jail Doctor forthwith and a report shall be submitted to this Court expeditiously in regard to the allegation in the petition that their eyes have been damaged by certain police officers by putting acid therein.
We, however, decided to hear the Misc.
But this much is certain, that six prisoners were thus blinded between A October 1979 and May 1980 and twelve between June 11 and July 25, 1980.
Shri Ambika Prasad Poddar, Assistant Inspector General of Prisons, Bihar, has filed an affidavit in this Court, setting out the circumstances in which and the reasons for which the petitioner was suspended by the Government of Bihar.
On October 26, 1979 a prisoner by the name of Arjun Goswami was sent to the Bhagalpur Central Jail.
Whether these barbarous acts were companymitted by members of the public after the prisoners were caught or by the police after they were arrested, is number a matter directly in issue before us.
Petitions, had assumed charge as the Superintendent of the Bhagalpur Central Jail on April 19, 1979.
On October 9, 1980, ten blinded prisoners filed a Habeas Corpus petition in this Court Criminal Writ Petition No.
Later, eleven prisoners made similar companyplaints which were for warded by the petitioner to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, on July 30, 1980.
From the records of Jail Hospital it is known that he was admitted in Jail Hospital on 8.7.1980 for acid burn injury of both the eyes.
On that very day, the petitioner was suspended by the Government of Bihar on the ground the he was negligent in providing proper medical aid to the blinded undertrial prisoners inside the Jail and that he had failed to make proper entries in the Jail Register as regards the physical companydition of the undertrial prisoners.
Perception of light and projection of rays absent in both the eyes.
The Registrar questioned the Petitioner, Bachcho Lal Das, in Delhi.
These statements show that 15 out of the 17 prisoners were blinded by the police and the remaining 2, whose names appear at Serial Nos.
Petitions filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of suspension, since he alleged which, at first blush, seemed plausible, that he was suspended in order to defeat the order passed by this Court on December 1, 1980.
On November 20, 1979 he addressed an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, asking that an inquiry be held into the torture inflicted upon him, especially the blinding of his eyes.
The cause is perforation of eye balls by burn with some companyrosive substance and puncture by some sharp and pointed weapon.
The companyplaints made by these prisoners unquestionably demanded the most prompt and careful attention.
The petitioner Bachcho Lal Das, who has filed these Misc.
Having companysidered the submissions of the petitioner and those of Shri K.G. Bhagat, who appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar, we are of the opinion that there is numbermerit in the companyplaint of the petitioner that he was suspended on December 1, 1980 in order to prevent him from companyplying with the order passed by this Court on that day and with the ulterior object of defeating that order.
That application was forwarded by the petitioner to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The method adopted for blinding the undertrial prisoners, as described by the prisoners themselves, was that a takwa a long needle used for stitching gunny bags or a barbers nail cutter or a cycle spoke was poked into their eyes and acid was poured into the eyes, sometimes with the help of a dropper, sometimes with a syringe and sometimes directly from a bottle.
14 and 15 of the report of the Registrar, were blinded by the members of the public.
The suspension order, according to Shri Poddar, was passed on the basis of the various rules and numberifications governing the companyditions of the petitioners service and was number passed in order to frustrate or defeat the order passed by this Court on December 1, 1980.
Petitions are an off shoot of the Windings of undertrial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar.
By his letter dated October 31, 1980 the petitioner, who is respondent 2 in the Habeas Corpus petition, forwarded to this Court the report of the Jail Doctor on the companydition of the eyes of the prisoners.
These Misc.
On December 1, 1980, the Court the Chief Justice and Chinnappa Reddy, J. , while directing that the prisoners be brought to Delhi the following week and be examined at the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic Institute, New Delhi, passed the following order The report of the doctor which we had called for by our Order dated October 10, 1980 shows that eight out of the ten petitioners before us have lost their eye sight totally or partially.
The greater probability is that these acts may have been companymitted mostly by the police.
He prays that the order of suspension dated December 1, 1980 be quashed, since at was passed by the State of Bihar mala fide with the object of preventing him from filing an affidavit in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on December 1, 1980.
The report of the Jail Doctor in regard to one of the prisoners, Anil Yadav, is representative of the companydition of all the eight of them and may be extracted here Presence of old burn scar around both the eyelids of both the eyes and on left cheek.
Issue numberice to the State of Bihar asking it to show cause on the petition as also as to why the petitioners should number be released on bail on their personal recognizance.
The report shall be submitted within four weeks from today.
We direct the Jail Superintendent to ensure due and full companypliance with these directions.
The remaining 2 prisoners were already released and companyld number therefore be examined.
According to the petitioner, he got a blinded prisoner Umesh Yadav examined by the Jail Doctor, since the report of the doctor was required by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in companynection with a bail application filed by the prisoner.
The petitioner stated to him that as many as 31 blinded prisoners were brought to the Jail under orders of remand issued by the Magistrate and that they were given medical treatment by the Jail Doctor.
P.C. to provide a lawyer to any person for prosecuting a criminal case as a companyplaint and that the petitions of the prisoners were forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhargalpur, for needful in accordance with law.
