Prisoner Identification Number: Section 44, Bihar Prison Manual, 2012

Section 44 of Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 reads:. Every prisoner to have a number.—Every prisoner shall receive a serial number corresponding with the entry relating to him/her in the admission register and this register number shall be his/her distinguishing mark whilst in the prison. The serial in each prison and in each admission register shall be of total 11 alpha numeric code characters:
I. The first letter signifying prison type i.e. C (Central Prison), D (District Prison) or S (Subsidiary Prison)
ii. Next two digit signifying the prison Code for a particular category eg Beur may be 01
iii. The next three letter would indicate category of prisoner i.e. Male Convict (MCT), Male Under-trial (MUT), Male Civil prisoner (MCL), Prisoner sentenced to death (STD), Female Convict (FCT), Female Under-trial (FUT), Female Civil prisoner (FCL)
iv. The remaining 5 digit number running from 10000 to 99999 denoting his serial Number. The serial number of prisoners shall start from 10001 and run up to 99999  The unique 11 character code indicating the prison, category of prisoner and prisoners number shall invariably precede his/her name when he/she is referred to in any official communication e.g. Prisoner Ramesh Kumar, who is a male convict, with serial Number 12345 and lodged in Beur Central Prison will have the code CO1 MCT1 2345/Ramesh Kumar. 

i. When a prisoner is re-captured or re-transferred or remanded to prison during the same calendar year, he/she shall not have a new serial number or a new entry in the register; but if he/she be re-captured or re-transferred or remanded in a difterent calendar year, he/she shall not have a new serial number but his/her details shall be entered again in the register as new admission, giving reference to the old admission. 

ii. In case of a further conviction during any sentence, the prisoner shall not have a new number or page of the register, but on every such conviction an entry shall be inserted containing the particulars relating to the new sentence.

Bihar Government complies with Supreme Court's directions, Principal District and Sessions Judge made head of Board of Visitors of jails in place of DM

All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

-Article 13(1), The Constitution of India 

The word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in the way of their material well-being. It has also deprived them of certain civil rights….The untouchable is not even a citizen. 

-Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, “Evidence Before the Southborough Committee”, in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 256

 Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into water-tight compartments. Caste System is not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division of labour—it is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.

-“Annihilation of Caste” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 47 

Ahead of the upcoming hearing of the Supreme Court on November 3, 2026, on September 23, 2026, the Bihar Cabinet approved amendments to Rule 743 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, in compliance with the Supreme Court''s orders of July 30 and September 10, 2026, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).-10/2024, Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India. 

The Supreme Court's 6-page long order dated September 10, 2026 reads: "3. We give one last opportunity to place on record a comprehensive report explaining in what manner our order dated 30.07.2026 has been complied with. We make it clear that by the next date of hearing, we want a report indicating that all the States/Union Territories district-wise have constituted the Board of Visitors headed by the Principal District Judge."  

In compliance with a Supreme Court's order regarding the appointment of official and non-official visitors for all prisons, the State Government has amended the rules of the Bihar Prison Manual. The term "District Magistrate," which previously appeared in the regulations concerning the prison system and visitor arrangements, has been replaced with "District and Sessions Judge." A Board of Visitors will now be constituted, and under the new rules, it will be headed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

The unamended Rule 743 of Bihar Prison Manual reads: "Rule 743 Board of visitors.—The official and non-official visitors to all the prisons in the district shall constitute a Board of Visitors, of which the District Magistrate shall be the ex-officio chairperson. Official and non-official visitors shall jointly visit the prisons in the district atleast once in each quarter."  

The head of the Board of Visitors of jails will now be the Principal District Judge. A major change has been made in the administration of Bihar’s jails. The inspection by Board of Visitors’ team has been made mandatory to inspect the district jails at least once every three months. Now, it will be compulsory to visit and inspect the jails in the districts. During the inspection, the Board of Visitors of the jail will assess the arrangements on the jail campus, cleanliness, food, security, and the inmates. The command will not remain with the DM. The legal and basic facilities available to the inmates will be reviewed directly at the level of the judicial Principal District and Sessions Judge. 

This is being done in compliance with Supreme Court's directions in para 225-227 of the judgement dated October 3, 204 in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) which reads:"225 Apart from this, a Board of Visitors is constituted, as per the Model Prison Manual 2016, at a district level. The Board comprises of: “29.03 The Board of Visitors shall comprise the following official members:
a) The District Judge at the District level, or the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate exercising Jurisdiction, at Sub-Division level
b) The District Magistrate, at the District level or Sub-Divisional officer at Sub- Divisional level
c) District Superintendent of Police
d) The Chief Medical Officer of the Health Department, at the District level or the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer at Sub-Division level
e) The Executive Engineer, PWD at the District level, or Assistant Engineer PWD at Sub-Divisional level
f) The District Education Officer dealing with literacy programmes.
g) District Social Welfare Officer
h) District Employment Officer
i) District Agricultural Officer
j) District Industrial Officer

The Board shall make at least one visit per quarter and for this purpose, presence of three members and the chairman shall constitute quorum.  

29.04 The Board of Visitors shall also comprise the following Non-Official Members:-
a) Three Members of the Legislative Assembly of the state of which one should be a woman.
b) A nominee of the State Human Rights Commission
c) Two social workers of the District/Sub-Division; one of them shall be a woman having an interest in the administration of prisons and welfare of prisoners.
29.05 The District Judge shall be the Chairman of the Board of visitors at District level and the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate shall be the Chairman at Sub-Division level. The Non-official visitors after their appointment must be sensitised and trained about their duties, roles and responsibilities.”
226 The duties of the Board have been provided as follows:
“29.22 All Visitors, official and non-official, at every visit shall:
(a) examine the cooked food;
(b) inspect the barracks, wards, work-sheds and other buildings of the prison generally;
(c) ascertain whether considerations of health, cleanliness and security are attended to, whether proper management and discipline is maintained in every respect and whether any prisoner is illegally detained, or is detained for undue length of time while awaiting trial;
(d) examine prison registers and records, except secret records and records pertaining to accounts;
(e) hear and attend to all representation and petitions made by or on behalf of the prisoners;
(f) direct, if deemed advisable, that any such representation or petition be forwarded to the Government;
(g) suggest new avenues for improvement in correctional work.”
The comments of the Board of Visitors are recorded in the visitors’ book of the prison and are forwarded to the Inspector General (IG) of Prisons. Any action on the comments is at the discretion of the IG Prisons. 
227 The Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 also envisages inspection of prisons, including by a Board of Visitors headed by the district judge/additional district judge/sub-divisional judicial magistrate.311 It also includes the provision for “free legal aid to the prisoners in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987” and the relevant standard operating procedure."

In its order dated July 30, 2026, the Court had directed all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that Board of Visitors is constituted district – wise headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular District, within a period of four weeks from today. Board of Visitors shall be constituted accordingly without fail. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly. 

Supreme Court's 7-page long order dated July 30, 2026 reads: "1. Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Amicus has placed on record a detailed Status Report. 2. In the Status Report, the learned Amicus has provided the background of the entire litigation, more particularly the various directions issued by this Court in its decision titled “Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India and Others”, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 535. 3. The report talks about compliance of various directions issued by this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, including the clarificatory Order passed by this Court dated 7th November, 2024. 4. We have looked into the entire report. One copy of the Status Report has been provided to all other learned Counsel appearing in this litigation. 5. However, in the course of today's hearing, learned Amicus laid much stress on para 25 of his status report." Para 25 is titled 'Information Awaited Para 25 reads:The Amicus is awaiting further written responses from several States/UTs in respect of:-
"a. The method of collection and transmission of caste-data to NCRB;
b. Deletion of caste columns in all the registers and forms in prisons;
c. Outsourcing of cleaning work;
d. Status of compliance with the guidelines in the judgments in Arnesh Kumar and Amanatullah Khan;
e. Notifications constituting BoVs district wise;
f. Status of new Acts/Rules/Manuals that are proposed by several States/UTs;
g. Status of amendments to offending provisions in the Acts/Rules/Manuals.”

Dr. Muralidhar, the Amicus informed the Court that the State of Assam, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Meghalaya, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh have evolved a methodology insofar as collection and transmission of caste data is concerned. According to him, the same methodology may be adopted by other States/UTs for the purpose of procuring the necessary information. According to him, as on date, none of the States/Union Territories have constituted Board of Visitors District-wise. According to him, it is very much important and necessary for each State/UT to constitute Board of Visitors in each of the Districts where are sub-jails. This has to be done under the Model Prison Manual, 2016, more particularly, Clause 29.01 read with 29.03 respectively including the State Prison Manual respectively. 

The Court's order reads: "10. We direct all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that Board of Visitors is constituted district – wise headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular District, within a period of four weeks from today. Board of Visitors shall be constituted accordingly without fail. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly....We also direct all the States/Union Territories to provide us the status of amendments to the offending provisions in the Acts/Rules/Manuals as pointed out by the learned Amicus in his Status Report within a period of four weeks from today. 13. Registry shall forward one copy each of this Order to the Principal Secretary (Home) of all the States/Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories. The necessary Report as regards the aforesaid shall be forwarded by the respective States/Union Territories by 3-9-2026. Once all the necessary information is received, the Registry shall provide one copy each to the learned Amicus at the earliest."

In Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024), the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court  delivered a 148-page long judgement dated October 3, 2024, wherein, referring to the discriminatory provisions in the prison manuals in the States, it concluded:...the impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months; (ii) The Union government is directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in this judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months; (iii) References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments are directed to make necessary changes in the manuals/rules in line with this judgment, within a period of three months; (iv) The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted; (v) The Police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest;(vi) This Court takes suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India." The Court will hearing In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India case on November 3, 2026. 

Also read: Supreme Court all set to end persisting caste based discrimination in the prisons 

Supreme Court to hear Barun Yadav's case for premature release/remission on August 3

In Barun Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar passed a 2-page long order dated July 16, 2026. It reads: "the State would submit that the State Sentence Review Board has considered the petitioner's case in its meeting dated 11.07.2026 and the formal report/ decision taken in the meeting is awaited. 2. Post the matter on 03.08.2026." 

In its previous order, the Supreme Court had directed the respondent-State of Bihar to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for premature release/remission expeditiously. The petitioner’s case for pre-mature release/remission is under consideration which shall be decided in accordance with provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual.  

The SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order  in Barun Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2023), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Rajiv Roy delivered a 11-page long judgement dated May 16, 2023, wherein it had concluded: "15. After having gone through the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, we do not find any justifiable reason to doubt the veracity of the depositions made by the prosecution's witnesses at the trial in the facts and circumstance as noted above. In our view, based on the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC for killing his father and his nephew in the wake of a dispute arising out of partition in the family and injuring PW-8. 16. We accordingly do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed." The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Singh.  The petitioner's counsel were Ajay Kumar Thakur, Ritvik Thakur and Vaishnavi Singh. 

Also read: Supreme Court directs Bihar Government to decide premature release/remission of Barun Yadav expeditiously

Justice Alok Kumar Pandey upholds order transferring Ritlal Yadav from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur

In Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Alok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered as 35-page long judgement dated April 27, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with law. The decision-making authority has been duly exercised by the competent officer, and the subsequent communication thereof cannot, in any manner, be construed as an impermissible delegation of power. The procedural safeguards mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand duly observed and no prejudice or infraction of the petitioner's rights is made out. The transfer of the petitioner, founded upon relevant material including administrative recommendations and security considerations, reflects a bona fide and reasoned exercise of statutory power. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of substance and unsupported by the legal position. Hence, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order and the contention of the learned counsel for the State is quite tenable and sustainable in the light of the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 42. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order calls for no interference and stands affirmed in law. Consequently, the present criminal writ petition stands dismissed." 

The other five respondents were: Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Assistant Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, District Magistrate, Patna and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

Ritlal Yadav, the petitioner had prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s, quashing the order dated October 30, 2025 issued by the Assistant Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 29(3) of the Prisoners Act, 1900 read with Rule 781(vii) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, whereby the earlier transfer order dated April 30, 2025, transferring the petitioner from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur (Tritya Khand) was extended for a further period of six months, on the basis of the report/recommendation of the District Magistrate, Patna and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s, commanding the respondents to declare the impugned order dated October 30, 2025 as illegal, void and non est in the eye of law, to restrain the Respondents from giving effect to or acting in furtherance of the impugned order dated October 30, 2025 and to hold and declare that the impugned order cannot operate or be given effect to, the same being in the teeth of the judicial order dated August 7, 2025 passed in a Special Case of 2018 by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-III cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A. Court, Patna and to direct the Respondents to lodge and keep the petitioner at Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna, and not at Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur.

The judgement records that petitioner has multiple criminal cases pending against him, which includes 11 cases mentioned in para 22 of the writ petition, 25 cases as per entry register dated November 23, 2025 and 8 cases as per entry register dated February 10, 2020 and on the said aspect administrative decision was taken to transfer and the confidential report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna was quite evident in the light of the facts and circumstance of the case. 

The judgement reads: "The settled principle encapsulated in the Latin maxim delegatus non potest delegare that a delegate cannot further delegate-applies only where there is a transfer of decision-making authority. In the present case, no such transfer has occurred. The decision stood duly taken by the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna in exercise of his statutory powers. The Assistant Inspector General, Prisons (Region), Bihar, Patna has neither exercised independent discretion nor assumed any decision-making role, but has merely communicated the decision so taken. In these circumstances, the aforesaid maxim has no application. 37. A plain reading of the impugned order clearly
establishes that, upon due approval of the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, the order was communicated under the signature of the Assistant Inspector General, Prisons (Region), as is evident from Annexure-P/1. The impugned order is, in substance, a continuation of the earlier order of  incarceration in the said jail, pursuant to the petitioner's prior transfer vide Memo No. 3161 dated 30.04.2025, and has been issued only after obtaining the requisite approval of the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services. 38. Notably, no objection has been raised by the petitioner on the aspect of such approval. The impugned order also discloses the reasons necessitating the continuation of the earlier arrangement, founded upon the communications of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. In particular, reliance has been placed on the recommendation contained in Letter No. 2517/General dated 30.10.2025 of the District Magistrate, Patna, and Letter No. 14159/confidential dated 29.10.2025 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The extension was necessitated on account of credible information regarding criminal conspiracy during the petitioner's stay in Model Central Jail, Beur, Patna. 39. A bare perusal of the relevant provisions makes it clear that the concerned authority has merely communicated the order upon obtaining due and requisite approval from the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna. The Assistant Inspector General, Prisons (Region), Bihar, Patna has not exercised any independent decision-making authority but has acted strictly in accordance with such approval, and the order bears his signature only by way of formal communication."

Justice Pandey observed: "It is, therefore, evident that the communication of the order cannot be equated with delegation of power, as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notably, the petitioner has not disputed the factum of prior approval by the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna."

Supreme Court directs Bihar Government to decide premature release/remission of Barun Yadav expeditiously

In Barun Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria passed a 2-page long order dated January 29, 2026 wherein, it concluded:"....we direct the respondent-State to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for premature release/ remission expeditiously. 3. List the matter on 16.07.2026." The order recorded that "....the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, that petitioner’s case for pre-mature release/ remission is under consideration which shall be decided in accordance with provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual."

In Barun Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2023), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Rajiv Roy delivered a 11-page long judgement dated May 16, 2023, wherein it had concluded: "15. After having gone through the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, we do not find any justifiable reason to doubt the veracity of the depositions made by the prosecution's witnesses at the trial in the facts and circumstance as noted above. In our view, based on the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC for killing his father and his nephew in the wake of a dispute arising out of partition in the family and injuring PW-8. 16. We accordingly do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed." The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Singh.  

The appeal before the High Court was preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated June 2, 2015 and order dated June 10, 2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul, in a Sessions Trial of 2010 which arose out of Jadia P.S. case f 2010, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment of 3 years, 10 years and for life respectively. He was fined Rs 10,000/ each under Sections 307 and 302. All the sentences are running concurrently.

The prosecution's case as per the fardbeyan of the informant (PW-7) was that her father-in-law Shiv Ram Yadav (the deceased) had three sons viz. Arun Yadav (PW-8), Tarun Yadav (PW-2) and Barun Yadav (the appellant). Consequent upon disputes raised by the appellant, Shiv Ram Yadav (the deceased) had partitioned the joint family property in equal shares amongst the coparceners. On August 15, 2010 at about 03:30 am, when the informant was sleeping with her daughter in her house and, her father-in-law, Shiv Ram Yadav (the deceased), brother-in-law, Arun Yadav (PW-8) with his son Raj Kumar and the daughter of Arun Yadav, Arti kumari (aged eight years, PW-3) over a machaan made of bamboos at the door, PW-3 suddenly came crying to tell the informant that his uncle (the appellant) was assaulting her grandfather (Shiv Ram Yadav) and Raj Kumar (son of Arun Yadav also a deceased) with dabia (a sharp cutting heavy weapon). The informant and her daughter Puja rushed towards the machaan and noticed the appellant, Ashok Yadav and another person inflicting dabia blows over the deceased Shiv Ram Yadav, Raj Kumar and Arun Yadav. On alarm being raised by the informant and her daughter, the villagers assembled and saw the accused persons fleeing away. The reason behind the occurrence as mentioned in the FIR was that the appellant was not satisfied with the share allotted to him and used to demand a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- as his share. 

In the previous night, accused Ashok Yadav along with an unknown person had been seen taking meal in the house of the appellant, who too was involved in the commission of the offence. The police upon completion of investigation, submitted its chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC. The court, after taking cognizance of the offences committed the case for trial. The trial court framed the charges for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC. As the appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried, he was put on trial. 

The High Court recorded that the occurrence in question took place on August 16, 2010 at 03:30 am, the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 06:15 am and the inquest report was prepared soon thereafter at 06:30 am. Prompt recording of fardbeyan, preparation of inquest report and registration of FIR normally obviates chance of false implication of a person upon due deliberation. The inquest report clearly suggests that the injury was caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon which corroborates the prosecution's case as disclosed in the FIR and subsequently at the trial. The post-mortem examination also supports the prosecution's case of the ante-mortem injuries caused on the body of the deceased persons by sharp cutting weapon. The child witness, who is an eyewitness and was sleeping with her father at machan appears to be consistent in her deposition in whose presence the occurrence had taken place.animosity arising out of dispute over the respective shares of the joint family property upon partition cuts both ways and appears to be the apparent reason why the appellant committed the ghastly murder of his father and son of his full brother.