Lawyers For Justice (non-government Organization) v. State Of M.p. & Others

1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming reliefs as under :-

"11.1 That, kindly be issued a writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 State to make an enquiry for fixing liability of the concern officers, who are responsible for neglect in official duties and protect the fundamental rights of victim Ramdayal and take appropriate departmental and criminal action against the concern officers.

11.2 That, kindly be issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to pay monetary compensation to the family of the victim Ramdayal, who was murdered in state custody.

11.3 That, kindly be issued writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 state to submit a report of action taken by state to this Honble Court.

11.4 That, any other relief which this Honble Court may deem fit to grant in the fact and circumstances to the petitioner may also kindly be granted."

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Ramdayal S/o Sunder Lal, resident of Harda was facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in Sessions Trial No. 356/12 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, Distt. Dewas and was detained as under trial prisoner in Sub-jail Kannod, Distt. Dewas. He was referred for treatment on 21/06/14 by the order of Additional Sessions Judge Kannod and was admitted in hospital of Central Jail, Indore. On 16/07/14, under trial Ramdayal was sent to M.Y. Hospital, Indore for treatment and admitted in Bed Number 12 Ward Number 17 of M.Y. Hospital, Indore. On 21/07/14, at about 4- 30 a.m., Ramdayal was shot dead by some unknown person, who came bearing Apron, in Bed Number 17 of Ward Number 17 of M.Y. hospital. It is stated that under trial prisoner murdered in the hospital while he was in custody of the State. The officers of the State failed to protect the life of the under trial prisoner. The State and its officers neglected to perform their official duty to protect the fundamental right and life of a citizen, therefore, it is necessary to fix the responsibility of the State and its officers, who neglected to perform their official duty to protect the fundamental right of the citizen and take appropriate departmental and criminal action against those officers. It is also necessary to provide monetary compensation to the family of the victim Ram Dayal by the State.

3. In reply respondent No.1, stated that under trial Ram Dayal was undergoing treatment in M.Y. Hospital on 21/07/14 jail warder Yashpal Dabakwal, was deputed in his security. After the incident jail warder Yashpal Dabakwal,who was on duty in M.Y. Hospital has already been suspended and departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. Show cause notice also given to jail warders Mahendra, Santosh and Yashpal who were on duty in M.Y. Hospital on 21/07/14 and after their reply, charge-sheet has been issued against them. Warder Mahendra and Santosh have been punished with withholding of one increment without cumulative effect whereas jail warder Yashpal has been punished with withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. It is further stated that jail warders who were deputed on duty with other prisoners in M.Y. Hospital were also served with the notices. After reply to the notice, no action has been taken against jail warders Deepak Tiwari, Muzib Khan, Irfan Khan, Vimal Silawat, Meharban Singh and Rajendra Rathore as they were not found guilty. It is further stated that show cause notice was issued to Muzib Khan, incharge of warders and in pursuance of the reply filed by Muzib Khan, another show cause notice has been served upon Deputy Jail Superintendent Shri S.B.Sharan and thereafter the enquiry was conducted and the report has been forwarded to the Jail Head Quarters, Bhopal for necessary action. It is further stated that State has very seriously taken up the matter, so that such incidence do not occur in future and in the present case family members of the deceased Ramdayal have been given compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further stated that on the basis of the representation forwarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Indore, respondent No.2 has been appointed as Enquiry Officer to find out the irregularity and the enquiry of the employees and after conducting detailed enquiry, order has been issued on 25/05/15. It is further stated that respondents have decided to deploy the guards, who are efficient in drill and weapons. It is prayed that petition be dismissed.

4. Respondent Nos. 4 & 6 in their reply stated that M.Y. Hospital is under the State Govt. The security of the Hospital is being looked after by a private security agency M/s Bhupan Intel Agency and an agreement was executed in between M.Y. Hospital and M/s Bhupan Intel Agency on 01/08/09 which was enforced on the alleged date of incident. It is further stated that whenever the prisoners are sent to M.Y. hospital for treatment by the Central Jail/District Jail, Jail administration sent the guard for security of the prisoners. On the alleged date of incident also, jail guards were on duty. The security agency of M.Y. hospital is not responsible for the security of the prisoners. It is further stated that on the alleged date of incident, jail guard Yashpal was on duty with the deceased Ramdayal and due to his negligence, incident took place. It is further stated that security guards are posted in ground floor, first floor, ICU by the security agency and on the alleged date of incident, security guards were on duty. It is prayed that petition be dismissed.

5. Respondent No.2 in his reply has stated that police Chauki of police station Sanyogitaganj has been set up in the hospital campus and on the alleged date of incident Head Constable Arun Kumar, No. 1615, Constable Devendra, No. 1436 and Constable Bane Singh, No. 2846 were present and they reached the place of incident immediately after the incident. The higher officers were also reached the place of the incident. It is stated that responsibility of security of the prisoners lies on jail department as per the provisions of jail manual. Police personnel are not required to be on duty inside of the ward of the hospital. The police personnel, who were on duty at police post at M.Y. hospital campus look after the persons injured in the road accident, poor injured persons and persons who have been referred by the police for medical examination and treatment. Police personnel of the police post also engaged in patrolling to check criminal activities. Responsibility of the security of the deceased Ram Dayal was with jail administration. After the incident, police personnel deputed to police post, reached the spot and crime No. 564/14 under Section 302/34 of the IPC has been registered with regard to murder of Ram Dayal and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is further stated that hospital administration has also engaged a private security agency for the purpose of security in the hospital campus. It is prayed that petition be dismissed.

6. Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 in their reply have stated that deceased Ram Dayal was detained in Sub-jail, Kannod. Ram Dayal was referred for treatment to M.Y. Hospital, Indore and he was admitted in jail hospital, Central Jail, Indore on 21/06/14. Ramdayal was sent through jail guard for further treatment at M.Y. hospital, Indore on 16/07/14. Ram Dayal was admitted in Ward Number 17 of M.Y. hospital. On 21/07/14, jail guard Yashpal was on duty from 2-00 a.m. to 6-00 a.m. On 21/07/14 at about 4-30 a.m., some unknown persons shot dead Ram Dayal. The report was lodged at P.S. Sanyogitanganj. It is further stated that jail guard Yashpal has been suspended for dereliction of duties and departmental enquiry has been set up against him. Show cause notices have also been given to duty incharge, Muzeeb Khan, jail guard Deepak Tiwari and Irfan Khan, who were deputed for the security of Ram Dayal. It is further stated that another under trial prisoner Jitendra @ J.D. S/o Laxminarayan was also admitted in ward No. 17 of MY hospital, Indore for treatment. Jail guards Mahendra Chouhan, Santosh Sagne, Vimal Silawat, Meharban Singh, Rajendra Rathore and Muzeeb Khan were on security duty. Show cause notices have also been issued to them and the enquiry is pending. It is prayed that petition be dismissed.

7. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and closely scrutinised the original record produced by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Indore. Ram Dayal S/o Sunder Lal aged about 30 years, resident of Village Ajnar, Police Station Handia, Distt. Harda was arrested in connection with Crime No. 564/14 under Section 302 & 308 of the IPC and was detained in Sub Jail, Kannod. Ram Dayal was shifted to Central Jail, Indore for treatment in compliance of the order dated 21/06/14 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod. Ram Dayal was undergoing treatment in Central Jail, Indore. On 16/07/14, he was sent to M.Y. hospital, Indore on the recommendation of the jail doctor for the treatment of brain tumor. He was admitted in Bed No.12 of Ward No. 17 situated at 3rd Floor of M.Y. Hospital, Indore. On 20/07/14, Irfan Khan, Deepak Tiwari and Yashpal have been deputed for the security of Ram Dayal. Irfan Khan was on duty from 6-00P.M. To 10-00 P.M, Deepak Tiwari was from 10-00P.M to 2-00.A.M and Yashpal was from 2-00 A.M. to 6-00 A.M. Santosh Agne, Mahendra Singh, Rajendra Rathore, Vimal Silawat, Meharban Singh and Radheshyam Thakur were deputed for the security of convict Jitendra @ J.D.,who was also undergoing treatment in M.Y. Hospital, Indore. On 20/07/14, Vimal Silawat was on duty from 2-00 P.M. to 6-00 P.M. and Meharban Singh was on duty from 10-00P.M. to 2-00 A.M. Radheshaym Thakur was on duty from 10-00P.M. to 2-00 P.M. On 21/07/14, Santosh Agne and Mahendra Singh were on duty from 2-00 P.M. to 6-00 P.M. Muzib Khan, incharge of the jail guards was also deputed in M.Y. Hospital, Indore. On 17/07/14. One Kishore S/o Bhagat, who was on parole, met convict Jitendra @ J.D. along with one another. Jitendra @ J.D. Informed Mujib Khan, incharge, jail guards on 18/07/14 that he apprehends danger to his life. Muzib Khan, incharge of the jail guards, informed Deputy Superintendent S.B.Sharan, who deputed two warder for the security of Jitendra @ J.D.

8. On 20/07/14 at about 5-30 p.m., Jitendra @ J.D. was shifted from Bed No. 17 to Bed No. 12 and Ram Dayal was shifted in Bed Number 17. Jail authorities failed to explain why and under what circumstances bed were changed.

9. On 21/07/14 at about 4-30 a.m., one person entered in ward No. 17 dressed as a doctor keeping mask on his face reached near Bed No. 17, fired at Ram Dayal and left the ward. It is pertinent to mention that the distance of Bed No. 12 is 40 feet from the door of ward No. 17 and the distance between Bed No. 12 which was occupied by Jitendra @ J.D. and Bed No. 17 which was occupied by Ramdayal is about 20 feet.

10. As noticed earlier, jail guard Yashpal was deputed for the security of Ram Dayal and Mahendra Singh and Santosh Agne were deputed for the security of Jitendra @ J.D. on 21/07/14 from 2-00 A.M. to 6-00 A.M. None of them made any effort to prevent the untoward incident probably they were not present inside the Ward. The very manner in which the culprit gained entry into the Ward shows that perhaps the untoward incident would not have been occurred had the aforesaid jail guards were vigilant.

11. On departmental enquiry, it has been found that none of the above 3 jail guards, Yashpal, Santosh and Mahendra were present in ward No.17. Thus, it is evident that due to dereliction of duty by the aforesaid jail guards, this unfortunate incident took place and an innocent person has lost his life.

12. It is pertinent to mention that RULE 178(A)(1) of Jail Manual provides that when jail inmate is seriously ill and has to be admitted for special treatment in a Government hospital on the advise of medical officer of Jail and it is not possible to get police guard then he shall be sent with two jail wards and immediately demand of police guard be made. From the perusal of Medical Officer Minute Book dated 16/07/14 it appears that no such demand of police guard was made when under trial Ram Dayal and convict Jeetendra were sent to M.Y.Hospital. Though latter on a note is made that police guard was demanded. Thus provision of jail manual not complied with.

13. On perusal of Dy. Supdt.s (Jailor) Report Book it appears that despite information given by incharge Mujib that convict Jeetendra apprehend danger to his life Dy. Supdt. S.B.Sharan has not informed his superor officers about it and no action has been taken expet deputing two warder in place of one for the security of Jitendra @ Jeetu.

14. It is surprising that Jitendra was not having any serious decease requiring treatment in M.Y.Hospital even then he was sent to MY Hospital. Jitendra himself made a request for his discharge after the incident and he was discharged. Medical Officer Minute Book dated 15/07/14 reveals that his name has been added latter on at serial number 14 with a different ink.

15. From the above discussion, it is evident that the provision of jail Manual has not been complied with by the jail authorities. Jeetedra was sent to M.Y.Hospital for treatment without having any serious illness. No information was given to his superior officers by S.B.Sharan that convict Jeetendra apprehends danger to his life in M.Y.Hospital. No adequate security arrangement were made for proper security of Jeetendra by the jail authorities. Had the jail authorities have taken proper care perhaps the untoward incident would not have been occurred.

16. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 5, it is stated that police outpost is situated in the M.Y. Hospital campus and Head Constable Arun Kumar, No. 1615, Constable Devendra, No. 1436 and Constable Bane Singh, No. 2846 were deputed on the alleged date of incident. But they also failed to avoid the incident. It is very surprising that in the third floor of the hospital assailant shot dead the under trial prisoner and after committing incident freely left the huge campus of the hospital. Had police personals were vigilant towards their duty perhaps such incident would have been averted. Respondents 1 and 5 are blaming the security lapses of jail authorities for not providing the proper security. In our opinion, police personnel deputed at the police outpost were also responsible for the security of the persons visiting in the hospital. Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 can not raise their hand saying that jail authorities were solely responsible for the untoward incident.

17. Respondent Nos. 4 & 6 have also taken the stand that the jail department is responsible for providing security to the prisoners, who are brought to the hospital. Respondent Nos. 4 & 6 have stated that security of the hospital has been given to one private agency namely M/s Bhupan Intel Agency. It is also stated that security guards were deputed in ground floor, first floor, ICU and medical ICU ward No. 27. It is true that it is not possible for hospital administration to depute security personnel on each ward, but security personnel should have been deputed to each and every floor of the hospital. Had security personnel deputed in 3rd floor and checking has been conducted, the incident might have been avoided.

18. In view of the above, we find that not only the jail authorities but all the respondents are equally responsible for the security lapses. It is beyond imagination that despite of security personnel of the hospital administration, police personnel and jail guards, such heinous crime was committed inside the medical ward. The patient comes to hospital with a hope that his life would be saved. No one can imagine that instead of saving his life, he would lost his life. Such incident inside the Ward of a reputed hospital of the State of M.P. is a blot on the respondents administration.

19. Constitution of India guarantees fundamental right to all citizens and State is responsible to protect the life of its citizens. The fundamental rights have a place of pride in the Indian Constitution. Article 21 provides "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa [1993 (2) SCC 746 [LQ/SC/1993/275] ], pointed out that prisoners and detenues are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights of the arrestees and detenues. It was observed :

"It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or under trials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials or other prisoners in custody,expect according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrong doer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law".

20. As discussed above, the respondents failed to protect the fundamental right of Ram Dayal. Thus, a wrong has been done.

21. Ubi jus ibi remedium - There is no wrong without a remedy. The law wills that in every case where man is wronged and undamaged he must have a remedy. A mere finding of negligence to protect the life during States custody does not by itself provide any meaningful remedy to family members of deceased Ram Dayal whose fundamental right to life has been infringed. Much more needs to be done.

22. Till about two decades ago the liability of the Government for tortuous acts of its public servants was generally limited and the person affected could enforce his right in tort by filing a civil suit and there again the defence of sovereign immunity was allowed to have its play. For the violation of the fundamental right to life or the basic human rights, however, Supreme Court has taken the view that the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the State for the tortuous act of the public servants and for the established violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

23. In Nilabati Behera v. State [1993 (2) SCC, 746], the decision of Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. 1965(1) SCR 375 wherein the plea of sovereign immunity had been upheld in a case of vicarious liability of the State for the tort committed by its employees was explained thus:

"In this Context, it is sufficient to say that the decision of this Court in Kasturilal upholding the States plea of sovereign immunity for tortious acts of its servants is confined to the sphere of liability in tort, which is distinct from the States liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application in the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution which enables award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights, when the only practicable mode of enforcement of the fundamental rights can be the award of compensation. The decisions of this court in Rudul Sah and others in that line relate to award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights, in the constitutional remedy upon Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Kasturilal related to the value of goods seized and not returned to the owner due to the fault of Government Servants, the claim being of damages of the tort of conversion under the ordinary process, and not a claim for compensation for violation of fundamental rights. Kasturilal is, therefore, inapplicable in this context and distinguishable."

24. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation or the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.

25. In D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 [LQ/SC/1996/2231] , Honble Apex Court observed as under:-

"The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much, as the protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the court and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim - civil action for damage is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at times perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim who may have been the bread winner of the family".

26. As noticed above, Respondent/State failed to protect the fundamental right of deceased Ram Dayal, therefore, question arises what relief can be granted to the family members of deceased Ram Dayal.

27. In Nilabati Baheras case (supra), it was held:

"Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising Writ jurisdiction, The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve new tools to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the title"freedom under the Law" Lord Denning in his own style warned :

No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. Your may be sure that they will sometimes to things which they ought to do : and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, out procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning or freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to date machinery by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence... This is not the task of Parliament... the courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in this country."

28. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa the Supreme Court awarded damages against the State to the mother of a young man beaten to death in police custody.

29. In D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 [LQ/SC/1996/2231] , the Honble Apex Court has observed in para-54 that,

"Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is nor available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do, That award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under he public law jurisdiction is, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit".

30. The respondents have submitted that on the recommendations of Human Rights Commission interim relief of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid to the family members of deceased/Ramdayal which has been deposited in the bank account bearing No.9576101110002053 of Sunderlal who is father of deceased/Ramdayal.

31. Taking into consideration that a person who has lost his life under the custody of State, in our opinion the interim relief of Rs.2,00,000/- is unjust and unfair. Taking into consideration that deceased/Ramdayal was aged about 25 years on the date of alleged incident and was a poor labour, we think that the dependents of the deceased/Ramdayal are entitled for just and fair compensation.

32. It is common knowledge that unskilled labour earns at least Rs.3,500/- per month. Deceased Ramdayal was about 25 years old and his father, wife and children were dependent upon him, we think Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) to be just and fair compensation.

33. Respondents have submitted that after holding departmental inquiry the jail warder/Yashpal has been held guilty and punished with stoppage of one increment. Warden-Mahendra Singh Chouhan and Santosh have also been punished with a stoppage of one increment. Other jail wardens have not found guilty.

34. Taking into consideration the very manner in which culprits got entry into the Ward No.17 and shot dead Ramdayal under trial prisoner and culprits walk free after committing murder of Ramdayal. The aforesaid jail warders who were on duty and were deputed to guard Ramdayal and Jitender @ J.D. were not present there and probably were sleeping. The punishment appears to be very lenient. In our opinion exemplary punishment should have been awarded to such jail warders who have grossly neglected their duties.

35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of this PIL with the following directions :-

(i) Respondent/State is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) to the family members of deceased/Ramdayal. However, Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid, therefore, State shall pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within two months.

(ii) Jail authorities are directed to review the punishment awarded to Yashpal, Mahendra Singh and Santosh.

(iii) Jail authorities are also directed to take departmental action against the person, who was responsible for shifting Jitendra @ J.D. from bed No.17 to bed No.12 in ward No.17 and for shifting Ramdayal from bed No.12 to bed No.17 in ward No.17.

(iv) Jail authorities are also directed to take departmental action against the jail officials of Central Jail, who were responsible to provide adequate security to convict Jitendra @ J.D., who already informed them regarding apprehension of danger to his life.

(v) Respondent/State is directed to send the prisoners for treatment in Govt. Hospital with sufficient armed security guards.

(vi) Respondent/State is also directed to ensure that under trial prisoners and convicts sent for treatment to M.Y. Hospital be admitted in a separate Ward and adequate security should be provided in the Ward.

(vii) Respondent/State is directed to take proper steps to check the entry of the outsiders in the ward where the prisoners are admitted.

(viii) Respondent/State is directed to install CCTV Cameras in the hospital ward where the prisoners are admitted.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.

Order accordingly.