Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pramod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 219/2022
Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner Through His Father Shri
Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Nanad Ram Aged About 51 Years R/o
Vill. Rooppura (Chuna Ka Bass) Tehsil And Ps Surajgarh Dist.
Jhunjhunu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Depart. Jaipur
2. The Director General (Jail), Jaipur
3. The Dist. Collector, Jhunjhunu
4. The Superintendent Central Jail, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.D. Chnwariya, on behalf of Mr.
Kaluram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Johsi, AAG, with Mr. Rajat
Chhaparwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
20/07/2022
Heard.
Perused the material available on record.
The petitioner herein has approached this court through
this writ petition seeking to assail the inaction of the respondents
in dealing with the application submitted by him for being sent to
the Open Air Camp. The respondents have filed reply to the writ
petition, wherein the minutes of the meeting of the Prisoners
Open Air Camp Committee held on 10.03.2022 are annexed,
which indicate that the case of the petitioner was considered
(2 of 3) [CRLW-219/2022]
under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 and
has been rejected. A perusal of the record reveals that the
petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 376-D of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
The controversy at hand is squarely covered by this
court's judgment in the case of Rajendra @ Goru Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.
189/2022] decided on 13.07.2022, wherein it was held that :-
"Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 postulates that the classes
of prisoners, which have been narrated in sub-clauses
of Rule 3 of the Rules, would ordinarily not be eligible
for being sent to the Open Air Camp. The term
'ordinarily' has been interpreted by this Court in
numerous decisions and it has been held that it does
not stipulate an absolute prohibition on such a convict
for being sent to the Open Air Camp.
However, we are of the definite opinion that while
considering the cases of the restricted classes of
prisoners as per Sub-clause of Rule 3, the word
'ordinarily' would definitely have to be considered
keeping in mind the gravity of offences attributed to
the convict. The Open Air Camp facility gives an
opportunity to the convicts to be rehabilitated into the
society because they can keep their families with them
in the campus and they can even move out of the camp
during the day time for earning their livelihood. If the
prisoners, who have been convicted with the heinous
offence under the POCSO Act, are sent to the open air
camp, their presence would definitely create a fear in
the mind of the families of the other inmates that their
children would not be safe if such prisoners are allowed
to stay in the open air camp and this could dead to a
(3 of 3) [CRLW-219/2022]
situation of strife. The convict himself would be at risk
as a consequence.
Therefore, we are of the firm view that while
considering the word 'ordinarily' even in a liberal sense,
the authorities would definitely be justified in taking
note of the nature and gravity of offences while
considering the application submitted by a convict for
being sent to the Open Air Camp more particularly for
those who are convicted and sentenced under the
POCSO Act and like offences."
As a consequence, we find no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order dated 10.03.2022, whereby, the application
submitted by the petitioner for being sent to the open air camp
was rejected. We are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled
to be sent to the Open Air Camp. Thus, the writ petition fails and
is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
8-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
