Sandeep vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17471 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
          D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 532/2021

Sandeep S/o Shri Navrangi Goswami, Aged About 42 Years, At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur Through His Father Shri
Navrangi S/o Shri Lakha Goswami, Aged About 70 Years, B/c
Goswami, R/o Opposite Dr. Pathak Hospital, New Dilhia, P.S.
Dihri Nagar, District Rohas, Bihar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State of Rajasthan, Home Depart. Jaipur.
2.     The Director General, (Jail) Jaipur.
3.     The District Collector, Jodhpur.
4.     The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.
                                                                ----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

23.11.2021
By the Court : PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.

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

- Sandeep S/o Shri Navrangi Goswami, at present lodged at

Central Jail, Jodhpur, under Rule 4, 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan

Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, wherein the application of

the prisoner for sending in open air camp was considered and

decided on 15.07.2021 in negative terms.

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

sentenced for the offence under Section 376(2)(f)(g) of I.P.C. with

(2 of 4) [CRLW-532/2021]

life imprisonment till remainder of natural life and fine vide

judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned District and

Sessions Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Jodhpur.

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1174/2017 filed against the above

judgment is pending consideration before this Court. Till

18.10.2021, the convict has remained in custody for a total of 9

years 3 months and 22 days.

The only ground for not referring the prisoner to open jail

was that the sentence for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f)(g)

of I.P.C. is restricted sentence and not eligible as per Rule 3 (d) &

(f) and Rule 4(a) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules,

1972 (for short, 'the Rules of 1972') and hence, the prayer for

open jail was rejected by the Committee in its meeting dated

15.07.2021.

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) .....

(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).

                                             (3 of 4)                [CRLW-532/2021]

           (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

(4 of 4) [CRLW-532/2021]

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 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.

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




                                    18-/Akshay/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)