Ajit Singh vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 17985 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 563/2021

Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh, Aged About 27 Years, At
Present Lodged In Central Jail,ajmer Through His Mother Smt.
Santosh Kanwar W/o Sh. Mahendra Singh, Age About 50 Years,
B/c Rajput, R/o Village Motora Ka Khera, P.s. Bigod, Dist.
Bhilwara.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State, Home Depart., Jaipur.
2.     The Director General (Jails), Jaipur.
3.     The District Collector, Bhilwara.
4.     The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG
                               (incharge)



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                    Order

01.12.2021
By the Court : PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.

The present D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petition is filed by

convict - Ajit Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, at present lodged at

Central Jail, Ajmer, under Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan

Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short, 'the Rules of

1972') to assail the action of the respondents whereby the

application of the prisoner for sending in open air camp was

considered and decided on 22.09.2021 in negative terms.

(2 of 4) [CRLW-563/2021]

The facts of the case are that the prisoner was convicted and

sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306

of I.P.C. with life imprisonment vide judgment dated 17.07.2018

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women

Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara. Till 11.11.2021, the convict has

remained in custody for a total of 8 years 9 months and 14 days.

The only ground for not referring the prisoner to open jail

was that the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is a restricted one

and thus, the prisoner is not eligible as per Rule 3 (d) and Rule

4(a) of the Rules of 1972 and hence, the prayer for open jail was

rejected by the Committee in its meeting dated 22.09.2021.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

Clause (d) 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 herein below:

"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) .....

(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).

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.

                                             (3 of 4)                [CRLW-563/2021]

           (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 live as a normal citizen

with limited restriction on movement, 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 clause (d). 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 Rules 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 being

considered by good work and good conduct in the prison and does

not have any adverse remark then in that case he will be entitled

to be sent to the open air camp, keeping in view the intention of

the State as referred(supra)."

That in the light of the facts of the case at hand and the law

as laid down by this Court in the case of Nirbhay Singh (supra),

(4 of 4) [CRLW-563/2021]

the minutes of the committee dated 22.09.2021 are quashed qua

the petitioner and it is directed that the matter of the petitioner

for sending him in open air camp be considered afresh in the real

spirit and intention of the Rules of 1972 and the restriction as

provided under 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 two months from the date of

receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The instant writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J




                                    15-/SPhophaliya/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)