Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shayam Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 October, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:43850-DB] (1 of 4) [CRLW-2107/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2107/2024
Shayam Lal S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, At
Present Lodged In Special Central Jail, Shyalawas, Dausa
Through His Mother Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Shankar Lal Aged
About 49 Years, R/o Shardar Ji Ka Kheda, P.s. Mandalgarh,
District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Department, Jaipur.
2. The Director General, (Jail), Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Special Central Jail, Shyalawas,
Dausa.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
24/10/2024
1. The present D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petition filed by convict
- Shayam Lal S/o Shri Shankar Lal, at present lodged at Special
Central Jail, Shyalawas, Dausa, under Rule 4, 5 and 6 of the
Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, wherein the
application of the prisoner for sending him in open air camp was
rejected on 31.07.2023.
2. The facts of the case are that the prisoner was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 and 394/34 of IPC
with life imprisonment vide judgment dated 25.08.2021 passed
[2024:RJ-JD:43850-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-2107/2024]
by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Bengu,
District Chittorgarh.
3. The only ground for not referring the prisoner to open jail
was that the sentence for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C.
is restricted sentence and not eligible as per Rule 3 (d) 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 31.07.2023.
4. Learned GA cum AAG at the threshold submits that while
Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972 does not permit transfer to the
Open Air Camp, he fairly submits that the conduct of the
petitioner was satisfactory, as recorded by the Superintendent of
Jail concerned. He also submits that the accused petitioner got
remission of 01 years, 01 month & 23 days, which indicates that
his complete period in the jail was unblemished, and therefore,
the maximum possible benefit of remission has been given to him.
He further submits that the accused petitioner was released on
first parole and he complied with all the necessary conditions and
surrendered on time.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
court towards the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in D.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No.532/2021 (Sadeep Vs. State of
Rajasthan) decided on 23.11.2021, relevant portion whereof
reads as follows:-
"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,
[2024:RJ-JD:43850-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-2107/2024]
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 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."
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Clauses (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 :-
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) .....
[2024:RJ-JD:43850-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-2107/2024]
(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).
4. Eligibility for admission to Open Campus :-
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)......."
8. This Court is 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.
9. This Court, upon examination of the term 'ordinarily' as
mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules 1972, and considering the
petitioner's good conduct in jail, a total remission earned, the
overall sentence period, satisfactory completion of first parole,
the cited precedent and the overall perspective of the case, is
hereby rejected the committee's minutes dated 31.07.2023 qua
the petitioner and it is directed that the convict petitioner shall
forthwith be sent to the suitable Open Air Camp in accordance
with law.
10. In view of above, the instant writ petition is allowed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
27-sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
