The Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, has ordered an immediate medical examination and a comprehensive inquiry into allegations of brutal assault and illegal activities within the Firozabad District Jail. The order was passed after an undertrial prisoner, Jacky alias Prashant, appeared before the court with visible injuries, claiming he was beaten by jail authorities for objecting to an illegal canteen and the sale of narcotics inside the prison.
The court, presided over by Miss Nagma Khan, PCSJ, took suo motu cognizance of the prisoner’s condition and application, directing the Chief Medical Officer to form a medical board, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conduct an inquiry, and the DIG of Prisons to investigate the conduct of jail officials.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the court on October 6, 2025, when undertrial prisoner Jacky, son of Mahipal Gupta, involved in Case No. 3502/2015 under the Arms Act, filed an application seeking a medical examination and action against jail authorities. The prisoner submitted photographs of his injuries and showed his bare back to the court.
The court noted its awareness of the “battery of cases against the under trial prisoner Jacky but plainly stating, this does not give any authority or person the right to assault him.”
Allegations of the Undertrial Prisoner
In a written application and oral submission, Jacky alleged that narcotics, including “charas and ganja,” are openly sold in the District Jail, with the Jailor and Deputy Jailor having given a “contract(theka) to Prisoner(Bandi) Kamlesh for illegal work.”
He further claimed that an illegal “hotel is being run inside the jail and food items are being sold at expensive rates.” The prisoner stated that when he objected, Deputy Jailor Basant and Rajaram threatened to have him transferred.
According to the application, on October 5, 2025, at approximately 6:00 PM, Sipahi Akash, in connivance with Deputy Jailor Basant and Rajaram, took Jacky out of his barrack and “assaulted him and beated him badly using sticks(lathi and danda),” causing injuries to his back and legs.
Orally, the prisoner added that he was targeted for not paying “‘chauth'” (extortion money) to the Jail Superintendent. After being presented in court, he lifted his shirt to display the injury marks on his back. The court recorded its own observation, stating it was “stunned, shocked and is in deep awe witnessing the injury marks all over his bare back.”
Court’s Analysis and Legal Reasoning
The court grounded its decision in the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and principles of international law. It emphasized that custodial torture is a grave violation of human rights and an affront to human dignity.
The judgment extensively quoted the Supreme Court’s observations in Munshi Singh Gautam vs State of MP, where it was held that “‘custodial violence, torture and abuse of police power are not peculiar to this country, but it is widespread.'”
Citing the landmark case of Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, the court reiterated that “‘prisoners are also persons'” and possess all constitutional rights unless curtailed by due process of law. It underscored that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, includes the right to live with human dignity and provides an “inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries.”
The court also referred to international instruments, including Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
A significant portion of the analysis focused on the Nelson Mandela Rules (United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners). The court highlighted Rule 1, which mandates that all prisoners be treated with inherent dignity, and Rule 34, which obligates health-care professionals to document and report any signs of torture. It also cited Rule 71, which requires the prison director to report any custodial death or serious injury to an independent authority for investigation.
The court concluded its analysis by stating, “right against custodial torture and to the security of one’s person and health of an under trial prisoner subject to reasonable restrictions are well established.”
Final Order and Directions
Finding that the “photos as submitted and injuries as apparent require immediate and urgent medical intervention,” the court issued a series of binding directions to various authorities. Stating that “‘A right delayed is a right denied,'” the court passed the following interim orders:
- Medical Examination: The Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Firozabad, is directed to immediately constitute an independent medical board of at least two doctors to examine Jacky and submit a detailed medico-legal report on his injuries and a recommended treatment plan within 48 hours.
- Prisoner’s Production: The Jail Superintendent is directed to produce the prisoner before the CMO without fail and submit periodic reports on his treatment.
- Safety and Security: The Superintendent of Police (SP), Firozabad, is directed to provide necessary assistance for the prisoner’s safe transport to the hospital and to ensure he is not placed in the same barrack as the co-inmate named in his complaint. His safety within the jail must be ensured, and he should not be in contact with the accused officials.
- SDM Inquiry: The jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) is ordered to conduct an inquiry into the allegations by recording statements of the prisoner, co-prisoners, and jail authorities, and by assessing CCTV footage related to the alleged assault and illegal canteen. The Jail Superintendent must preserve the relevant footage.
- Disciplinary Inquiry: The DIG Prison, Agra, is directed to conduct a parallel inquiry into the “negligence and breach of service rules on the part of the Jail Superintendent, Deputy Jailor and other authorities involved” and recommend necessary disciplinary action.
- FIR Registration: A copy of the complaint and the court’s order is to be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Firozabad, for the registration of an FIR and further necessary action.
- Communication: The order is to be communicated to the DM, SSP, CMO, DGP UP, DG Prisons UP, and IG Agra Range for compliance.
The court concluded that such steps were necessary to protect the “precious human rights” of the undertrial prisoner.
