Jail Staff Shares 'Vicarious Inculpability' With Prisoners In Unauthorised Possession Of Mobile Phones: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that jail staff share "vicarious inculpability" with prisoners found in unauthorised possession of mobile phones in prison.A five-judge bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Deepak Sibal, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta and Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, "...only with the active complicity of the jail staff, the...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that jail staff share "vicarious inculpability" with prisoners found in unauthorised possession of mobile phones in prison.
A five-judge bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Deepak Sibal, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta and Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, "...only with the active complicity of the jail staff, the inmated prisoner would purportedly hold unauthorized possession of a mobile phone. In sequel, the jail staff concerned shares vicarious inculpability with the inmated prisoner."
The Court explained that prisoners are placed in cells only after being frisked by the jail staff. Unless there is a failure to perform this duty, the prisoner will not be allowed to proceed to the allocated cell with mobile phones.
It added that the law completely failed to address the issue, of "drawing any vicarious inculpability against the jail staff, who, but for reasons (supra), are complicit with the inmated prisoner in the latter being led to take a mobile phone onto the cell, which becomes allocated to him in the prison concerned."
The full judges bench was constituted to decide a set of ten questions. The main question in the case was whether "without any conviction becoming handed over by the regular Court concerned, the mere detection of unauthorized possession of a mobile phone from the prisoner concerned, does disentitle him to seek the privilege of parole, especially when even in heinous offence, subject to imposition of certain exacting conditions, the regular Courts of competent jurisdiction can grant bail to the accused concerned."
The Court concluded that merely finding mobile phones in possession of prisoners would not be sufficient without cogent evidence to deny parole and the same is "extremely harsh and oppressive."
Title: Achan Kumar v. State Of Punjab & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 232
Click here to read/download the order