Jaspal Singh S/O Raghuvir Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2516 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1429/2021

Jaspal Singh S/o Raghuvir Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Nagali Mesha Ps Baroda Mev Dist. Alwar (Presently Confined In
Central Jail Alwar) Through His Father Raghuvir Singh S/o
Mahendra Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Nagali Mesha Ps
Baroda Mev Dist. Alwar Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General Prison
        Jaipur
2.      The Superintendent, Central Jail Alwar
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

24/03/2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was convicted for the offence under Sections 376/511, 435, 302

IPC and 4/6 POCSO Act, 2012 and

sentenced with life imprisonment and as per the reply filed by the

respondents, he has completed sentence of 9 years 7 months and

24 days including remission as on 07.09.2021. By now, the

petitioner has completed more than 9 years of his sentence.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's case was submitted

by the Jail Authorities for shifting him in Open Air Camp, but the

(2 of 4) [CRLW-1429/2021]

Open Air Camp Committee looking to the offence for which the

petitioner has been convicted i.e. Section 302, 376/511, 435 IPC

and taking into consideration the provisions of Section 3(d) of the

Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Rules of 1972") and Section 4(a), has decided

that the petitioner was held not eligible for shifting to the Open Air

Camp. Learned counsel submits that the provisions as noted

above have been interpreted by this Court in Krishna & Anr.

Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.)

582 and they are treated as directory in nature. Relying upon the

said judgment and another judgment of the Division Bench in the

case of Mahendra Kumar Versus Director General of Police & Ors.

Reported in 2005 (3) WLC 694, a Coordinate Bench of this court in

the case of Anandi Lal @ Nanda Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10504/2014 decided on 27.1.2015 has

held as under:

"Thus, it is clear that Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 is not mandatory and the word 'ordinarily' does not mean 'necessarily' and each case has to be examined on its own facts and the prisoner carrying any of the ineligibilities, referred to under Rule 3, may not oust him outrightly from consideration for admission to open air camp. In the instant case, application submitted by petitioner has been rejected primarily on the basis of his conviction under Section 392/34 of the IPC treating it as an ineligibility under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972. At the same time, there is no special reasons required for the prisoner from being considered for admission to open air camp and as per nominal roll of the petitioner he has rendered sentence for more than eight years and nine months including remission and his jail conduct has been found to be satisfactory. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner is not entitled to be given preference looking to his term of imprisonment. In the considered view of this Court no reason is forthcoming which disentitles the petitioner for being admitted to open air camp under the Scheme of Rules of 1972."

(3 of 4) [CRLW-1429/2021]

3. Learned counsel has also replied upon the subsequent

judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Dropdi Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Criminal Writ

No.377/2016 decided on 20.9.2017 wherein another Coordinate

Bench has followed an order passed by the Division Bench in the

case of Subhash Chand Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.12020/2013, decided on 30.8.2014.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions as

above and submits that the Open Air Camp Committee has

considered the case of the petitioner and has rejected his

application looking to the offence committed by him and age of

the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that a prisoner

does not have a right to get himself/herself transfer to Open Air

Camp and it should be left open for the Open Air Camp Committee

alone to take a decision in this regard.

5. I have considered the submissions as above and noticed the

aforesaid judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as

perused the material available on record.

6. It is true that no prisoner could claim transfer to Open Air

Camp as a matter of right. The Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air

Camp Rules, 1972 was framed primarily with an object to send a

convict to Open Air Camp with the purpose to encourage good

conduct, self-discipline and inculminating them to normal life. It is

a method to reform the prisoners to the social environment and

society as a whole. It is a reformatory concept. The law relating to

reformation of the prisoner has been discussed at length vide

several judgments by the Apex Court as well as by this Court as

noticed in the aforesaid judgments.

(4 of 4) [CRLW-1429/2021]

7. In the opinion of this Court, attempt should always be made

to reform a convict, if his/her performance while in the judicial

custody has been found to be above board and has not been

indulging in any other misadventure or activity which may

harming the society. Merely on account of the conviction for a

particular offence cannot be a bar for considering the petitioner's

case for shifting him to Open Air Camp. A straight jacket formula

cannot be applied in all the cases. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972

mentions word "ordinarily" and thus, the Open Air Camp

Committee is required to examine independently each and other

case.

8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and

also the report, which is placed on record, this Court is satisfied

that the petitioner has made out a case for being shifted to Open

Air Camp. Accordingly, the report of the Open Air Camp

Committee is set aside and the petitioner shall be entitled to be

shifted to Open Air Camp as per the Scheme of the Rules of 1972

and necessary order in this regard shall be passed by the

concerned Jail Authorities within a period of one month henceforth

and a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Authorities

for the said purpose.

9. In view of the above, the criminal writ petition is accordingly

allowed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/119

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)