Veena @ Meena vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 18579 Raj

(1 of 2) [CRLW-535/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 535/2021

Veena @ Meena W/o Dholiya @ Umariya @ Umrao @ Mandar, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bavari, R/o House No. 509/2014, Indra Colony, Hansi Dist. Hissar (Haryana).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General Prisoners, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaidev Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

07/12/2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the

decision dated 21.07.2020 of Open Air Camp Committee, whereby

application of the petitioner for sending her to Open Air Camp has

been rejected. The committee has refused to send the petitioner

to Open Air Camp for the reason that she had been sentenced to

life imprisonment which shall continue till the natural life of the

convict and that she has been convicted for a restricted offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jaidev Singh, has

placed reliance upon judgment dated 29.07.2021, passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition

NO.66/2021 (Sukhveer @ Kulli Vs. State & Ors.). The

extract of the judgment reads as under:

(2 of 2) [CRLW-535/2021]

"Learned counsel Shri Bhagat Dadhich placed reliance on the judgments dated 22.01.2021 and 11.02.2021 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.506/2020 (Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura Vs. State & Ors.) and D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.14/2020 (Vidhya Devi Vs. State & Ors.) and urged that in similar situation where the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life, this Court held that such sentence cannot deprive the convict from such right to be considered for being sent to the Open Air Camp. He thus urges that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration.

Shri Farzand Ali, learned Additional Advocate General is also not in a position to dispute the fact that the adverse recommendation dated 21.07.2020 (Annex.1) runs contrary to the interpretation as made by this Court in the case of Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura and Vidhya Devi (Supra).

In this background, the impugned recommendation dated 21.07.2020 (Annex.1) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein. His case for being sent to the Open Air Camp shall be objectively reconsidered by the Competent Authority within next two months. Needless to say that in case, any adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same as per law.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions."

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the

impugned recommendation dated 21.07.2020 is quashed and set

aside qua the petitioner herein. His case for being sent to the

Open Air Camp shall be objectively reconsidered by the

Competent Authority within next two months. Needless to say

that in case, any adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be

at liberty to challenge the same as per law.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

33-T.Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)