Probe Ordered After ISIS Operative and Serial Rapist Found Using Mobile Phones Inside Bengaluru Jail
The Parappana Agrahara Central Jail in Bengaluru has once again come under intense scrutiny following the surfacing of videos that allegedly show high-profile inmates freely using mobile phones and watching television within prison premises. The incident has triggered a departmental probe amid serious allegations of security lapses and preferential treatment being extended to certain prisoners.
Viral Videos Expose Major Security Breach
According to reports, the viral videos circulating on social media show ISIS operative Zuhaib Hameed Shakeel Manna and convicted serial rapist and murderer Umesh Reddy using mobile phones without restriction inside the jail.
In one of the clips, Zuhaib Manna — a computer application specialist from Bengaluru — can be seen sipping tea and scrolling through a mobile phone while conversing casually with the person recording the video.
As per the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Manna had been arrested for raising funds and recruiting vulnerable youth to join the banned terrorist organization ISIS, sending several Indian nationals to Syria.
In another video, Umesh Reddy, who has been convicted in multiple cases of rape and murder, is seen allegedly using three mobile phones. Reports indicate that jail authorities were aware of the availability of these devices and televisions inside the prison premises — a clear violation of prison rules.
Umesh Reddy’s Criminal Background
Umesh Reddy is one of India’s most infamous serial offenders, accused in 18 rape and murder cases across Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. Initially sentenced to death by a sessions court in Bengaluru in 2006 for the rape and murder of a 37-year-old woman in Peenya, Reddy’s punishment was later commuted to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years by the Supreme Court in 2021.
His criminal trajectory began during his service in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 1996, when he attempted to rape the daughter of a commandant while stationed in Jammu and Kashmir. After being arrested, he managed to escape custody and continued committing heinous crimes until his re-arrest.
Government’s Response and Ongoing Investigation
Following the public outrage, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah assured a thorough probe into the incident and promised that strict action would be taken against those responsible for allowing such violations inside the high-security jail.
The prison department has reportedly launched an internal investigation to determine how the inmates accessed mobile phones and whether prison staff were complicit.
Relevant Statutes and Legal Framework
-
The Prisons Act, 1894 – Governs the management, discipline, and security of prisons in India. Under Sections 42 and 45, prisoners are prohibited from possessing communication devices or unauthorized items, and prison officials are empowered to seize any such materials.
-
The Karnataka Prisons Manual, 1978 – Outlines detailed disciplinary rules for inmates. It strictly prohibits possession of mobile phones, television sets (unless authorized), or other electronic communication devices within prison premises.
-
Section 52, Prisons Act, 1894 – Provides punishment for breaches of prison discipline, including solitary confinement and forfeiture of privileges for inmates found violating prison regulations.
-
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Under this Act, prisoners accused of offences investigated by the NIA, such as terrorism or links with banned organizations, must be housed under strict surveillance conditions, making such security breaches particularly serious.
Constitutional Provisions Implicated
-
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Even prisoners retain certain fundamental rights under Article 21, but their liberty is subject to lawful restrictions. Allowing inmates to possess mobile phones compromises the safety and discipline of the prison system, thereby violating the principles of lawful custody.
-
Article 14 – Equality Before Law: The alleged preferential treatment shown to specific high-profile inmates breaches the principle of equality, suggesting systemic bias and administrative negligence.
Judicial Precedents on Prison Discipline and Inmate Rights
-
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494: The Supreme Court held that while prisoners have certain fundamental rights, they remain subject to prison discipline. Any privilege must comply with statutory rules.
-
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712: The Court reiterated that prisoners are entitled to humane treatment, but security and discipline cannot be compromised in the name of rights.
-
Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) 3 SCC 700: The Supreme Court emphasized the responsibility of the state to maintain security and prevent misuse of power or privilege within jails.
Administrative Accountability and Security Implications
This incident exposes deeper systemic flaws within India’s prison administration — highlighting corruption, lack of surveillance, and violation of standard operating procedures.
The use of mobile phones by convicts, particularly one associated with terror-related offences, raises severe national security concerns and points to possible collusion within prison staff.
Such lapses undermine public trust in law enforcement and judicial systems, especially when those convicted of the most serious crimes appear to live comfortably behind bars.
Conclusion: Prison Reforms and Accountability Needed
The Bengaluru jail episode underscores an urgent need for technological surveillance, stricter monitoring, and accountability within correctional institutions.
While the Chief Minister’s assurance of action is a step in the right direction, systemic reforms must follow to ensure that jails remain centers of reform, not hubs of privilege and corruption.
India’s criminal justice system must uphold the twin goals of security and rehabilitation, ensuring that no inmate — regardless of profile or influence — escapes the rule of law.

Comments
Post a Comment