1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Special Case No.33 of 2024, whereby the petitioner-Deepak Nandkishor Verma, was transferred from Nagpur Central Prison. It is further prayed to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to continue to remain in the Nagpur Central Prison.

4. The petitioner, who is an accused in Special Case No.33 of 2024, has been arrested by the MIDC Police Station, Nagpur in Crime No.831 of 2023. The petitioner was admitted to the Nagpur Central Prison along with the other gang members on 30.08.2023. The prosecution has invoked the provisions of MCOCA Act in the aforesaid Crime No.831 of 2023 as there are allegations of a gang being operated by the syndicate for continuing their unlawful activities for pecuniary gains. Taking into consideration the frequent quarrels and scuffles between the gang members of the present petitioner, and the other prisoners, the prison authorities had proposed the transfer of the petitioner from Nagpur Central Prison along with the other gang members. The petitioner has thus challenged the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, thereby allowing the said proposal forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur, whereby several accused persons have been transferred from Nagpur Central Prison.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ali, submits that no reasons whatsoever is given by the learned Sessions Judge as to the role of the present petitioner in committing any misconduct or violation of prison rules so as to transfer the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s fundamental right has been violated without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without any overt act on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner is being transferred. The proposal for group transfer of various prisoners included the transfer of the petitioner. Though there are several allegations about misconduct and violation of prison rules as against the other co-accused, however, there are no allegations of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, hence the impugned order in so far as it transfers the petitioner is therefore erroneous, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned counsel, Mr. Ali, further submits that the reasons given by the learned District Judge are pertaining to the entire group of prisoners being transferred and not to the individual prisoners like the petitioner. There are specific allegations against the some prisoners, in the proposal submitted by the jail authorities, Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, vide report dated 04.08.2026. However, the report/proposal would show that the incidents relied upon therein are all attributed to different prisoners and not the petitioner-Deepak Varma. The allegations of assault, physical altercation, threat, abusing behaviour and insubordination, damage to prison property, or any other act of prison misconduct are all attributed to other prisoners but not the petitioner. The impugned order is therefore misconceived and is therefore erroneous insofar as the present petitioner is concerned and is thus liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. The petitioner is already lodged in a separate barrack No.6 of the Badi Gol Division, whereas the other concerned undertrial prisoners are accommodated in different sections and barracks according to the security arrangements. Thus, there is no necessity to transfer the petitioner as there is no reported incident in barrack No.6 as against the present petitioner of violation of any prison rules.

8. Mr. Ali, learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.569 of 2025, Mohan Ghanchekar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra particularly para 16, wherein this Court relying upon the judgment of the State of Maharashtra and others ..vs.. Saeed Sohail Sheikh reported in AIR 2013 SC 168, has quashed the order of transfer of prisoner.

9. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot be punished for the misconduct on the part of the other prisoners and thus cannot be transferred him from Nagpur Central Prison. The petitioner’s family resides in Nagpur and the offence is also registered at Nagpur and it would be inconvenient for the petitioner to give instructions to his counsel from Nagpur if he is placed at another prison. If the petitioner is transferred from Nagpur Central Prison, the petitioner may face difficulty in meeting with his family members as well as giving instructions to his lawyers. The impugned order transferring the petitioner from Nagpur Central Prison to another prison is therefore illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. As against this, Mr. Ghogre, learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner is an undertrial in Crime No.831 of 2023 registered with MIDC Police Station, Nagpur wherein the provisions of MCOCA are invoked. The petitioner is a gang member of the syndicate which is found to be involved in continuous unlawful activities for pecuniary gains. There are frequent quarrels and scuffles between the gang members of the present petitioner and the other prisoners in the Nagpur Central Jail. The offences are registered at Police Station, Dhantoli under various sections of the Prisons Act, 1894 as well as the BNSS and IPC pertaining to the quarrels between the gang members of the petitioner and the other prisoners. The prison authorities had taken the aforesaid decision of transferring the entire gang members in the aforesaid crime to some other prison for the safety and better administration of the central prison and to separate the prisoners by transferring them to nearby prisons in the Nagpur division itself.

11. The learned A.P.P. further submits that the proposal was submitted to the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 04.08.2026. The jail authorities have specifically mentioned all the several such incidents of assault and prison misconduct which are committed by the inmates of the jail and requested for transfer, taking into consideration the frequent assaults and scuffles and also taking into consideration the shortage of manpower in the prison to avoid such untoward incidents as well as the apprehension of danger to the life of the gang members/prisoners. The aforesaid exercise was undertaken under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2025”). The learned Sessions Judge had been informed about such transfer and after application of mind to the reply filed by the petitioners as well as the other gang members, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the transfer of the prisoners for the better administration of the prison. The impugned order is passed after application of mind and after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the prisoners. The impugned order is therefore just, proper and liable to be maintained.

12. The learned A.P.P. further submits that even though there are no direct allegations mentioned in the proposal against the petitioner. However, there are serious misconduct on the part of all the gang members and for which there are separate offences registered at Dhantoli police station by the prison authority. There is apprehension of danger to all the gang members in the prison and hence the decision is taken in the better administration of the prison, the petition is therefore devoid of substance and merit and thus liable to be rejected.

13. I have gone through the proposal submitted by the prison authority. The perusal of the proposal dated 04.08.2026 shows that all the accused in Crime No.831 of 2023 were admitted to the prison on 30.08.2023. The accused Rahul Shinde was admitted to high security section (anda cell), whereas Devansh Sharma, Ganesh Dandekar, Vedant Mankar were kept in a separate cell. Accused Aamir Mustafa was kept at barrack No.5 and Deepak Varma was kept at barrack No.6. The proposal further states that all the aforesaid accused who are members of the same gang have continuously engaged into assault, scuffles not only with the prisoners but also with the prison authorities.

14. The proposal mentions several such incidents and one of which is an incident which took place on 26.05.2026 at 3:40 p.m., wherein gang members Rahul, Hasan and Rakesh assaulted an inmate of the open prison, namely Dinesh Hazare and injured him. At 4:00 p.m. on the same day, all three members of the same gang, of which the petitioner is also a member, had again assaulted the open prisoner, Dinesh Hazare and Ayush Deepak Ingole. The assault with fist and kick blows took place wherein prisoner Dinesh Hazare received injuries. The Prison official Pandhari Gadade had to intervene and stop the scuffle and called upon Circle Officer, Prakash Kosare and Jailer, Kishor Rahangdale and Subhedar who had then separated the prisoners and sent them to their barracks. In the said incident, open prisoner Dinesh Hazare was grievously injured and undergone primary treatment from the medical officer.

15. The aforesaid incident was reported to Dhantoli Police Station, which has registered Crime No.121 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(1)(2), and 3(5) of the BNS against accused Rahul Shinde, Hasan Khan and Rakesh Kachela.

16. There is another incident dated 17.11.2024 mentioned in the proposal wherein accused Hasan jumped the queue for taking food and entered the area of a different barrack despite being asked not to do so while food distribution was going on. The accused Hasan threatened the prison officials that he would make a false complaint to the Court for not giving him proper non-vegetarian food, whereas the authorities had only asked him to come in the queue. This was noted as serious misconduct by the authority and a notice was issued to him on 18.11.2024 for taking action.

17. There are several other incidents which are referred to by the prison authorities, which include incidents dated 20.12.2024, 16.04.2024, 25.05.2025, 13.09.2025, 18.04.2026, 10.07.2026, 15.07.2026 and 17.07.2026.

18. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid incidents of serious prison misconduct committed by the prisoners and members of the gang to which the petitioner belongs, the prison authorities have found that the gang members have continuously indulged in assaults, quarrels and other misconduct. This has created serious enmity amongst the prisoners and the jail authorities have expressed that there is a likelihood that they would be assaulted by other prisoners against whom they have committed crimes when taken for Court proceedings. The petitioner being a member of the aforesaid gang, there is every likelihood of a threat to his life and as such, his name was also placed in the proposal by the prison authorities for transfer from Nagpur Central Prison. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to file his reply. The petitioner filed reply and objected to his transfer by filing a reply dated 06.08.2026. Thus, it appears that the principles of natural justice have been followed. Section 32 of the Act of 2025 empowers the jail authorities to transfer any prisoner from one prison to another within their respective jurisdiction. Clause 6 of Section 32 of the Act of 2025 provides for an intimation to the trial Court about the transfer of such prisoner.

19. In the present case, the Prison Authorities have not only intimated but also sought appropriate orders from the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge issued notice to all the prisoners concerned whose transfer was sought and after considering their reply, passed the impugned order.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case of Mohan Ghanchekar (supra). Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that, the writ petition came to be allowed by the this Court, on the ground that the petitioner prisoner therein was not granted an opportunity of hearing, while transferring the petitioner from one prison to another. That is not the case here, the petitioner here was granted an opportunity of hearing by the District Judge before finally passing the order, sanctioning the transfer of petitioner from Nagpur Central Prison. The petitioner filed reply dated 06.08.2026 which is part of the writ petition. After perusal of the reply and application of mind to the facts of the proposal, which narrated several incidents of misconduct by the entire gang members of which the petitioner is also one of the gang member, the impugned order came to be passed sanctioning the proposed transfer by the prison authority. Thus, as the opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, the aforesaid judgment in the case of Mohan Ghanchekar (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.

21. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel of the petitioner, Mr. Ali in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that it is obligatory for the Court to apply its mind fairly and objectively to the circumstances in which the transfer is prayed for and to take a considered view, having regard to the objections which the prisoner may have to offer. It is implicit in that process of determination and decision making that there is a duty to act fairly and objectively, or in other words, to act judicially.

A perusal of the impugned order below Exh.82 dated 17.08.2026 shows that the learned District Judge-2, Nagpur has taken into consideration the several incidents of assault, beating of other prisoners and misconduct with prison staff committed by the accused persons. It was also noted by the learned District Judge that in same cases even the offence are registered for the incident which took place in the prison. The learned District Judge had also considered the reply wherein accused Rahul Shinde had prayed for shifting from Amravati or Yavatmal jail, accused Devansh, Aamir Mustafa, Deepak Varma and Ganesh Dandekar had prayed for retention in Nagpur Jail whereas accused Vedant and Hasan had submitted they are residents of Yavatmal and suitable orders may pass considering convenience of family meetings. The learned District Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances including instances of assault, registration of offence for assault in prison, misconduct and misbehaviour of all the prisoners and gang members of the accused found that the apprehension expressed by the Jail Authority that there is a possibility of happening of untoward incident which may put the safety and their life and life of other prisoner therein was justified and allowed transferring of such prisoners including petitioner.

22. For verifying the credentials and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court had asked the learned A.P.P. to provide the criminal antecedents. A crime chart was produced by the learned A.P.P. to show the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Perusal of the crime chart includes the following offences registered against the petitioner- Deepak Nandkishor Varma :-