Jharkhand High Court: While deciding a criminal appeal challenging the management of food supply and canteen facilities within the jail premises, wherein it was contended that inmates were not being provided food in accordance with the jail manual and that the permission granted to a committee of inmates to run the canteen required judicial scrutiny, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., upheld the permission to operate the canteen and held that strict responsibility must be placed on the Jailor. The Court further directed that the District Legal Services Authorities (‘DLSA’) conduct frequent inspections to ensure compliance with the jail manual and to assess the quality of prison food to determine whether it is being supplied to the inmates as provided therein.
Background:
In compliance with earlier directions, the Jail Superintendent and the Jailor appeared before the Court, and the register relating to the selection of the committee to run the jail canteen was produced for perusal.
It was submitted that food was now being supplied to the inmates strictly in accordance with the jail manual. An affidavit filed on behalf of the State also confirmed that the quality of food had improved and that inmates were being provided meals as per the prescribed standards.
The State further contended that since a committee comprising many inmates had been constituted to run the canteen, permission should be granted to ease the difficulties faced by inmates in obtaining day-to-day articles.
During arguments, it was noted that the present Jailor had only recently joined, while his predecessor was under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that food supply must strictly adhere to the jail manual. The Court highlighted that permission to run the canteen was being granted, but with a clear direction that the Jailor would be held responsible if any irregularity was found during inspections conducted by Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (‘JHALSA’)/DLSA.
The Court observed that, in case of irregularities, departmental proceedings would be initiated. It was noted that, so far as providing food to the inmates in the different jails is concerned, the Court directed the Chairman, DLSA, Ranchi, to visit along with the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi, on any non-working day to conduct a surprise inspection. The Court further observed that such inspections should be conducted frequently and that reports should be submitted within two weeks.
The Court also directed that updates regarding the departmental proceedings against the suspended Jailor and the conspiracy aspect be submitted on the next date of hearing. Finally, the Court reserved liberty to the officers concerned to apprise it of any untoward incidents or irregularities for passing further necessary orders.
[Akash Kumar Roy v. NIA, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 961 of 2024, decided on 26-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ayush Deb, Advocate
For the Respondent: Pankaj Kumar, P.P., Sharda Kumari, A.C. to P.P., Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate, Sourav Kumar, Advocate