Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajkumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 240/2022
Rajkumar S/o Sh. Sardara Singh, Aged About 34 Years, At
Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner Through His Mother Smt.
Rajbala W/o Sh. Sardara Singh, Age About 58 Years, R/o Chhaja
Ki Nagal, Teh. Neem Ka Thana P.s. Patan, Dist. Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Depart. Jaipur.
2. The Director General (Jail), Jaipur.
3. The Dist. Collector, Sikar.
4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG I
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 27/06/2022 This writ petition (parole) has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondents of not considering his application for sending him in the open air camp on account of the fact that he has been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 376(2)(I) IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents of not considering the application of the petitioner is illegal because Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1972') does not completely prohibit sending a prisoner to (Downloaded on 27/06/2022 at 08:13:45 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLW-240/2022] the open air camp, who has been convicted under Section 376(2) (I) IPC as the language used in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 is "ordinarily".
Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in DB Criminal Writ Petition No.532/2021 (Sandeep vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has already held that Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1972 do not absolutely prohibit entitlement of prisoners falling in the class enumerated in Rule 3 and 4 to be sent to open air camps.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner for sending him to the open air camp in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep's case (supra).
Learned GA-cum-AAG-I has vehemently opposed this parole writ petition, however, he is not in a position to dispute that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by the Sandeep's case (supra).
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep's case (supra) has observed as under :-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Clauses (d) & (f) of Rule 3 and clause (a) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1972 are relevant for the just decision of this petition, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"3. Ineligibility for admission to open air camp:- The following classes of prisoners shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to Open Camp:-
(a).....
(b).....(Downloaded on 27/06/2022 at 08:13:45 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLW-240/2022] (c).....
(d). Prisoners who have been convicted of an offences under sections 121 to 130, 216A, 224, 225, 231, 232, 303,311, 328, 333, 376, 377, 383, 392 to 402, 435 to 440, and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).
(e).....
(f)Prisoners who are habitual with more than two previous convictions of imprisonments to their credit.
(g).....
(h).....
(i).....
(j).....
(k).....
(l).....
(m).....
4. Eligibility for admission to Open Camps:- A prisoner shall be eligible for admission to an Open Air Camp:-
(a) He does not fall within any of the categories specified in rule 3 above.
(b) .....
(c) ....."
We are of the view that Rules of 1972 were framed with the intention for sending convicts to open air camps to encourage good conduct, satisfactory performance and work and life of self-discipline among the convicts of Rajasthan, and to provide these convicts with pre- release, opportunity to learn social adjustments and economic self-dependence. The Government of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by clause 18 of Section 59 of the Prisoner Act, 1984, drafted the said rules.
On perusal of Rules 3 and 4 quoted above, the intention of State was more than clear and unambiguous in as much as the word ordinarily was used for ineligibility for admission to open air camp and specified offences were reiterated in clauses (d) & (f).The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ No.38/2018 (Nirbhay Singh @ Nabbu Vs. State), decided on 04.04.2018 has interpreted the phrase "ordinarily be not eligible" and it has been held that Rules 3 and 4 do not absolutely prohibit entitlement of prisoners falling in the class enumerated in Rule 3 and 4 to be sent to open air camps. It was further held that if the applicant makes out the case that he is worthy of good work and conduct in the prison not having any adverse remark then in that case he will be entitled for open air camp, keeping in view the intention of the State as referred (supra)."
That in the light of the facts of the case, the minutes of the committee dated 15.07.2021 are rejected qua the petitioner and it is directed that the matter of the petitioner for sending him in open air camp be considered in the real spirit and intention of the Rules of 1972 and the restriction as provided under (Downloaded on 27/06/2022 at 08:13:45 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLW-240/2022] Rules 3 and 4 will not come in the way of petitioner, specially, when in the reply it is admitted fact that the work and the conduct of the prisoner in the jail was satisfactory. The committee is directed to consider the application sympathetically within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
The instant writ petition is disposed of in the above terms."
In the present case, the State has not come up with a case that the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory during his stay in the jail.
In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to allow this parole writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for sending him to the open air jail sympathetically within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep's case (supra).
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 34-Arun/-
(Downloaded on 27/06/2022 at 08:13:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)