Disposed¶16

Dhiren Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Apr 2026Cr.A(DB)/372/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abatement of criminal appeal on death of appellant in custody; medical negligence in Jharkhand jails; Article 21 rights of prisoners, undertrials and convicts; vacant sanctioned doctor posts in jails; doctors on deputation; DLSA/JHALSA jail inspection reports across 24 districts; suo motu cognizance and conversion into Public Interest Litigation; reference to Hon'ble Chief Justice; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; 30th April, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal stood abated on the death of the appellant; the Court took suo motu cognizance of medical negligence in Jharkhand jails, converted the proceeding into a Public Interest Litigation, and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate order. ¶16

Dhiren Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal should stand abated on the death of the appellant, the legal representatives having given no instruction to pursue it. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

On the death of the appellant and in the absence of any instruction from the legal representative to pursue the appeal, the instant criminal appeal stands abated.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Irrespective of any distinction between inmates, persons lodged in jails — whether undertrial prisoners or convicts — are entitled to the full protection of Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing the right to life and survival.

¶23

Key takeaways

Where posts of doctors have been sanctioned specifically for the jails but remain unfilled, the omission is contrary to the mandate of Article 21; unless doctors are substantively posted rather than deputed on a temporary basis, proper medical care cannot reasonably be expected in emergencies.ratio¶24
The Court cannot remain a silent spectator on an issue of larger public interest concerning the welfare of jail inmates; it accordingly took suo motu cognizance of the matter and converted the present proceeding into one in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 372 of 2023 (High Court of Jharkhand) abated upon the death in custody of the convict-appellant, Dhiren Yadav, his legal representatives having given no instruction to pursue the appeal; the Court recorded the allegation that the death resulted from medical negligence by the State. On reports called for by order dated 11th March, 2026 from the DLSAs of all 24 districts through JHALSA — on which submissions indicated 42 of 43 sanctioned doctor posts vacant, doctors posted on deputation, para-medical recruitment pending since a 2025 advertisement, and shortages of X-ray, ECG and SPO2 equipment — the Court held that jail inmates, whether undertrials or convicts, are entitled to the full protection of Article 21, and that leaving sanctioned doctor posts unfilled is contrary to the mandate of Article 21. Taking suo motu cognizance of the larger issue of medical negligence in Jharkhand jails, the Court converted the proceeding into a Public Interest Litigation and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 372 of 2023

¶3

Dhiren Yadav … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶4

------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶5

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

¶7

Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP

¶8

¶9

Order No. 16: Dated 30^th April, 2026

¶10

1. It is a case where the convict-appellant has died while in custody.

¶11

2. The issue has been raised on behalf of the appellant [now deceased] that because of the medical negligence on the part of the State, the appellant [now deceased] has died.

¶12

3. One Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 5246 of 2026 has been filed for substitution of the legal representative of the appellant. However, the submission has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the said Interlocutory Application no specific prayer has been made seeking leave of this Court to pursue the appeal by the legal representatives.

¶13

4. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal in absence of any instruction by

¶14

¶15

the legal representative to pursue the appeal may be allowed to be abated.

¶16

5. Accordingly the instant appeal has been abated.

¶17

6. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/legal representative has submitted that the larger issue of medical negligence in the different jails situated within the State of Jharkhand requires consideration. This Court has, therefore, called upon the State to file an affidavit with respect to the medical care to be provided to inmates inside the jails. For the aforesaid purpose, a report was directed to be obtained from DLSA from each jail through the Civil Surgeons of the concerned districts, who were required to visit the respective jails falling under their jurisdiction, accompanied by the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, so that a joint report has been called for passing further necessary orders, as is evident from order dated 11th March, 2026.

¶18

7. The report from 24 district of DLSA through JHALSA has been received, which is part of the record. The copy of the reports, so received from DLSA, had been handed over to Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. appearing for the State for filing response.

¶19

8. Pursuant thereto, the response has been filed.

¶20

9. Learned counsel for the appellant pointing out the same, has submitted that out of 43 sanctioned vacancies of

¶21

¶22

doctors 42 posts are lying vacant. Further most of the doctors have been posted on deputation. Even the para medical staffs are not available, as would be evident from submission made by learned counsel for the State that for selecting the para medical staffs, the advertisement has been floated way back in the year 2025 but what is the position as of now, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P., has submitted that he has no instruction.

¶23

10. This Court, upon consideration of lack of medical amenities, viz. doctors, paramedical staff, and essential medical equipment such as X-ray machines, ECG machines, and SPO₂ monitors (oxygen machines), finds the position herein to be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled that, irrespective of any distinction between inmates living inside the jail, they too are entitled to the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India, which encompasses the right to life and survival.

¶24

11. The posting of doctors on a substantive basis is at the core of the issue. If posts of doctors have already been sanctioned by the Government but remain unfilled, such omission is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The reason is evident: unless doctors are substantively posted, and instead are deputed on a temporary basis, proper medical care cannot reasonably be

¶25

¶26

expected in cases of emergency. The posts have been sanctioned specifically for the jails. It is further evident that in some jails, arrangements have been made for weekly deputation, particularly for female inmates, and in certain districts, such as Saraikela-Kharsawan, the arrangement is only on a monthly basis.

¶27

12. Once the State has sanctioned the post of doctors and para medical staffs for their posting on substantive basis in the jails, but reasons best known to the State, that why the posts are not being filled up.

¶28

13. We are living in an era wherein the right to life, or the right to survive, stands recognized as a fundamental right. There can be no disparity meted out to inmates, whether undertrial prisoners or convicts, they too are entitled to the full protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life in its widest amplitude.

¶29

14. In such circumstances, this Court cannot remain a silent spectator when the issue, being of larger public interest concerning the welfare of jail inmates—whether undertrial prisoners or convicts is at stake.

¶30

15. In view of the foregoing, this Court deems it appropriate to take suo motu cognizance of the matter and to convert the present proceeding into one in the nature of “Public Interest Litigation”.

¶31

¶32

16. Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate order.

¶33

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶34

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶35

30th April, 2026 Alankar/-

¶36