Disposed

Chander Prakash v. State

Delhi HC10 Feb 2025W.P.(CRL)/1794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict's writ petition against a punishment ticket withdrawing mulakat, phone and canteen privileges for 15 days for misbehaviour with a jail medical officer. The court held the confession supporting the punishment was not recorded before two independent witnesses as required by the Delhi Prison Rules, quashed the ticket and appraisal order, permitting a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Punishment ticket and appraisal order quashed; liberty to Respondent to initiate fresh inquiry strictly per Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

Chander Prakash Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1794/2023

¶4

CHANDER PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Shradna Mewati, Advocate

¶5

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Arjit Sharma, Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates along with SI Vinod Kumar, PS Sangam Vihar

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R % 10.02.2025

¶9

CRL.M.A. 942/2025 ( for early hearing )

¶10

For the reasons and grounds stated in the application, the same is allowed and the main writ petition is taken up on Board today itself.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 1794/2023

¶13

The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 impugns the punishment ticket No. 286 dated 21^st May, 2022¹ and the judicial appraisal order dated 21^st December, 2022 whereby Mulakat , phone facility and canteen services for the Petitioner were stopped

¶14

1 “the impugned punishment ticket”

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 1794/2023 Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:37:38

¶17

for a period of 15 days. The punishment ticket reads as follows:

¶18

“IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON 14.05.2022, THE ABOVE SAID CONVICT PRISONER/PATIENT GONE TO OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER, CENTRAL JAIL HOSPITAL, CJ-03, WHERE HE MISBEHAVED WITH DR. RAVINDER KUMAR, MEDICAL OFFICER, CJ-03 HOSPITAL AND ALSO REFUSED TO TAKE ALL KIND OF TREATMENT FROM JAIL HOSPITAL AS WELL AS OUTSIDE HOSPITAL. (COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.05.2022 RECEIVED FROM MEDICAL OFFICER, CJ-03 HOSPITAL IS ATTACHED)

¶19

THUS, SUCH CONDUCT OF THE ABOVE SAID CTP IS AGAINST THE DELHI PRISONS RULES 2018. HENCE, HE MAY BE PUNISHED AS PER RULE.

¶20

Heard in the presence of Sh. Shivanand Kumar (DS) and Sh. Avish Tomar (AS). The above mentioned inmate admitted their offence and hence their “mulakat” for 15 days, “phone facility” for 15 days and “canteen” services for 15 days is stopped subject to approval of Ld, DSJ.”

¶21

The Petitioner is serving life sentence awarded in respect of proceedings arising under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶22

The impugned punishment ticket is based on communication dated 14^th May, 2022 received from the Medical Officer Incharge of the Central Jail Hospital, Tihar wherein it is stated that the Petitioner has misbehaved with the said Officer. The said communication reads as follows:

¶23

“Sub: Refusal for treatment by inmate patient Chanderprakash s/o Durjan Singh

¶24

With respect to above mentioned subject, it is submitted that above said patient is a case of Cholelithiasis with Cholecystitis under follow-up of GB Pant Hospital, GI Surgery Department. He was scheduled for admission in GB Pant Hospital on 20/04/2022 but due to shortage of DAP personnel patient could not visit GB Pant Hospital on 20/04/2022. On 21/04/2022, patient was again planned for GB Pant Hospital in emergency but patient refused to go to outside Hospital. Patient was sent to GB Pant Hospital for admission on 04/05/2022 but DAP personnel refused for his admission for security reasons.

¶25

Today on 14/05/2022, patient came to the office of undersigned

¶26

W.P.(CRL) 1794/2023 Page 2 of 4

¶27

¶28

and misbehaved with the undersigned and refused for all kind of treatment from Jail Hospital as well as outside hospital.

¶29

This is for your kind information and further intimation of concerned court.”

¶30

During the course of proceedings, it was revealed that the Petitioner had admitted to his offence in the presence of the Assistant Superintendent of Jail and the Deputy Superintendent of Jail. Since this case involves a confession, no further inquiry was deemed necessary. However, a crucial procedural lapse arises in light of Rule 90(51) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which mandates that any confessional statement made by an offender must be recorded in the presence of two independent witnesses.

¶31

While the presence of the two jail officers (Assistant Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent) is noted at the time of award of the punishment by the Jail Superintendent, however, the confession stands uncorroborated by any independent witnesses, thereby violating the procedural safeguards envisaged under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. This procedural irregularity undermines the foundation upon which the punishment has been awarded.

¶32

At this juncture, it is noticed that letter dated 14^th May, 2022 issued by the Medical Officer Incharge notes that when the Petitioner met the Medical Officer Incharge on 14^th May, 2022, he refused all treatment, both from the jail hospital as well as from outside the hospital. The Court finds no reason to doubt these observations, however in absence of confession and denial of charge would have warranted an inquiry by the Jail Superintendent to ascertain the facts.

¶33

Thus, since the impugned punishment ticket is based solely on the Petitioner’s confession, which was not recorded in the presence of independent witnesses but only before the two jail officers, who were parties

¶34

W.P.(CRL) 1794/2023 Page 3 of 4

¶35

¶36

to the proceedings for award of punishment, the Court finds the impugned decision to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶37

(a) The punishment ticket dated 14^th May, 2022 and the appraisal order dated 21^st December, 2022, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, are hereby quashed.

¶38

(b) The Respondent is at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry against the Petitioner, should they deem it necessary, strictly in accordance with the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

¶39

In view of the above, the present petition along with pending applications, is disposed of.

¶40

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶41

The next date of hearing, i.e. 06^th March, 2025, stands cancelled.

¶42

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶43

FEBRUARY 10, 2025/ab

¶44

W.P.(CRL) 1794/2023 Page 4 of 4

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:37:38

Chander Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alam Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Another

Manoj Vs the State (Govt of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

Manoj Vs State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babli Vs Satate of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bhupendra Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Jyoti Saxena Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Alam Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Air Customs Vs Sangwoo Choi

Manoj Vs the State (Govt of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

Sunil Vs Pinki Rani

Navneet Hooda Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Sardarmal Jain Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.