Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 March, 2024
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2024:RJ-JD:10865-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal (Parole) Writ Petition No. 223/2024
Dinesh S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 26 Years, At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur through his Mother Smt. Devi W/o
Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Narsinghpura,
P.S. Sojat City District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Department, Jaipur
2. The Director General, Jail Jaipur
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
05/03/2024
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged
the minutes of Open Air Camp Advisory Committee (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Committee'), taken in its meeting held on
06.12.2023, whereby his application for sending him to Open Air
Camp under The Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972') has been rejected.
2. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is serving his incarceration pursuant to his
conviction for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
per viam judgment dated 23.10.2018 (in Session Case No.
09/2017) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Sojat. As the petitioner had served more than 7 years'
[2024:RJ-JD:10865-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-223/2024]
sentence, he moved an application for sending him to Open Air
Camp under the Rules of 1972, which application was rejected by
the Committee in its meeting dated 31.07.2023, inter-alia
observing that there are two more criminal cases pending against
him.
3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.07.2023 by way
of filing writ petition which was registered as D.B. Cr. Writ Petition
No. 1743/2023 (Dinesh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the
same came to be allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
while following judgment in the case of Shambhu Lal vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Cr. Writ Petition No. 28/2023 decided on
06.02.2023, while observing thus:
"4. Learned AAG has not disputed the fact that the
cases, which have been pending against the petitioner
are prior to his conviction and that twice he has gone
on parole and has returned back and his conduct in jail
is satisfactory.
5. In view of the above fact situation following the
directions in the case of Shambhu Lal (supra) the
petition is allowed. The minutes dated 31.07.2023 qua
the petitioner are quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to reconsider the application
filed by the petitioner."
4. The petitioner's application was again considered and
decided by the Committee in its meeting held on 06.12.2023. The
application, however, met with the same fate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Committee has seriously erred in rejecting petitioner's application
for sending him to Open Air Camp. He contended that the order
impugned is not only arbitrary, but also contrary to clear direction
[2024:RJ-JD:10865-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-223/2024]
given by this Court in petitioner's own case (Writ Petition No.
1743/2023). He emphatically argued that the fact that two more
criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, was very much
there when this Court had allowed petitioner criminal writ petition
(Writ Petition No. 1743/2023) and still for the very same reasons,
the Committee has rejected petitioner's application.
6. Learned counsel added that the order of the Committee on
merit is also unsustainable, as it is the conviction in two or more
cases, which creates an embargo and not the pendency.
7. Mr. Anil Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the decision of the Committee is in conformity with law and
since the petitioner has indulged in two more criminal cases, his
application for sending him in Open Air Camp has rightly been
rejected.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that it
will be difficult for the police/investigating agency to secure his
presence for the purpose of trial of remaining two cases and
therefore, no indulgence be granted.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. A simple look at the impugned minutes of meeting dated
06.12.2023 reveals that the Committee has not at all taken into
consideration the judgment of this Court in petitioner's own case,
so also in the case of Shambhu Lal (supra). This Court cannot, but
hasten to observe that when the earlier decision of the Committee
dated 31.07.2023 had been set aside by this Court and the matter
was remanded back, the Committee ought not to have rejected
petitioner's application for very same reasons.
[2024:RJ-JD:10865-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-223/2024]
11. While recording our concern about the manner in which
petitioner's application has been rejected, even on merit, we feel
that petitioner's application deserves acceptance. As per Rule 3(f)
of the Rules of 1972, the inhibition is only, if a prisoner has more
than two previous convictions, whereas, in the present case the
petitioner has been convicted in only one case and two cases are
pending trial.
12. We fail to comprehend as to how the pendency of two more
criminal cases in which admittedly petitioner has been enlarged on
bail, will be an impediment in petitioner's application for sending
him to Open Air Camp. The Committee has rejected the
application on the ground that as per the Rules of 1972 only
convicted prisoners can be sent to Open Air Camp, whereas there
are two pending cases against the petitioner, out of which in one
case is on bail.
13. Such an approach of the Committee in blowing hot and cold
at the same breath cannot be countenanced. If this is permitted, a
prisoner would be rendered remedy less in either situation. In a
situation such as in the present case, petitioner's application may
be rejected on ground of other cases being only pending. While, if
a conviction is made the relief would be barred in terms of clear
prohibition under Rule 3(f) of the Rules of 1972. The approach of
the Committee and rejection defeats the very purpose of beneficial
legislation and State's endeavour to bring the criminals/convicts in
main stream.
14. The petitioner is definitely a convict, pursuant to the
judgment dated 23.10.2018 (Session Case No. 9/2017) passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sojat and
[2024:RJ-JD:10865-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-223/2024]
therefore, the reasoning given by the Committee is clearly
contrary to facts and law.
15. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
16. Petitioner's application for sending him to Open Air Camp is
allowed. So far as place of keeping the petitioner (appropriate
Open Air Camp) is concerned, the same shall be considered by the
Committee within a period of four weeks from today.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
16-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
