Deeparam @ Deepla vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17565 Raj

                                          (1 of 4)                  [CRLW-531/2021]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
            D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 531/2021

Deeparam @ Deepla S/o Shri Laluram, Aged about 45 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Ward No. 1, Bapeoo, District Bikaner
(Raj.).
(At present lodged in Central Jail Bikaner)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        State of Rajasthan through Special Officer (Home) (Jail)
          Group-12, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.        The District Collector, Bikaner.
3.        The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Ms. R.S. Mertia
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG
                                 (incharge)



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

                                      Order

24/11/2021
By the Court : PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.

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

- Deeparam @ Deepla S/o Shri Laluram, at present lodged at

Central Jail, Bikaner, under 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

16.04.2021 in negative terms.

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

sentenced for the offence under Section 376(2)(cha), 366, 363,

341 of I.P.C. with life imprisonment and fine vide judgment dated

(2 of 4) [CRLW-531/2021]

17.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge No. 02, Bikaner Camp Sri Dungargarh.

D.B. Criminal Appeal filed against the above judgment is

pending consideration before this Court. Till 26.10.2021, the

convict has remained in custody for a total of 10 years 04 months

and 03 days.

The only ground for not referring the prisoner to open jail

was that the offence under Section 376 (2)(cha) of I.P.C. is a

restricted category as per Rules 3 (d) & 4(a) of the Rajasthan

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

1972') & hence the convict is not eligible for consideration under

the rules. Accordingly, the prayer for open jail was rejected by the

Committee in its meeting dated 16.04.2021.

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 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).

(e) .....

(f) .....

                                             (3 of 4)                      [CRLW-531/2021]

           (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 imbibe 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 the restricted offences were prescribed 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

(4 of 4) [CRLW-531/2021]

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 for consideration by doing good work and displaying

excellent 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 16.04.2021 are quashed qua the petitioner and

it is directed that the matter of the petitioner for sending him in

open air camp be considered 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

                                    51-/Akshay/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)