Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers a criminal court, during an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita, to require the production of a person confined or detained in prison either to answer a criminal charge or participate in proceedings, or to give evidence where the ends of justice require it. The provision is important because a person's imprisonment in one matter must not make that person unavailable to another court, while production itself must remain lawful, necessary and secure. This paper analyses the statutory text of section 302, its relationship with the former section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the constitutional values of personal liberty, fair procedure and speedy trial. It also considers the practical significance of prison logistics, overlapping proceedings, the use of video-conferencing, judicial reasons, and safeguards against using a production process as a substitute for lawful arrest or remand. Supreme Court decisions on prisoners' rights, speedy trial and video-conferencing are used as constitutional and procedural context; decisions interpreting the former CrPC provision are treated as persuasive where the statutory language remains materially similar, not as judgments directly interpreting section 302 BNSS. The paper argues for reasoned production orders, clear coordination between courts and prisons, careful scrutiny of the purpose for which a prisoner is required, and technology-supported attendance where lawful and fair. It concludes with practical recommendations for courts, prison authorities and rule-makers.