[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12221-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 396/2026
Shankar Singh S/o Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o-
Village Muthli, Tehsil Balotra, Distt. Barmer. (Convict/prisoner
Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).through His Nephew
Sukhdev S/o Shripokar Singh, Aged 25 Years, R/o-Villagemuthli,
Tehsil Balotra, Distt. Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretaryhome
Department,government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Cum Magistrate,barmer.
3. The Superintendent Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmi Devi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. K.S. Kumawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
12/03/2026
1. By way of the present criminal writ petition, the petitioner
has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality and
propriety of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Director
General, Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner's
application seeking transfer to an Open Air Camp was rejected.
2. The factual backdrop reveals that the petitioner was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned
Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No.31/1992. The
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:43:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12221-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-396/2026]
conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner came to be
affirmed by this Court in D.B.Criminal Appeal No.54/1995 decided
on 08.10.2024. As per the material placed on record, the
petitioner has already undergone more than eight years of
incarceration.
3. With the passage of time and in view of the period already
spent in custody, the petitioner submitted an application before
the competent authority seeking transfer to an Open Air Camp in
accordance with the applicable prison regulations and policy
governing such placements. The said application, however, came
to be rejected by the Director General, Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur
vide order dated 19.03.2025 on the ground that the offence for
which the petitioner stands convicted falls within the category of
"prohibited offences" and, therefore, his case was not considered
eligible for placement in an Open Air Camp.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
rejection of the petitioner's application is founded upon a
misconstruction of the governing provisions. It is urged that the
authorities have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the
offence falling within the category of "prohibited offences"
operates as an absolute and inflexible bar against consideration of
a prisoner for transfer to an Open Air Camp. According to the
petitioner, such an interpretation defeats the true purport and
intent of the relevant provisions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:43:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12221-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-396/2026]
6. Upon scrutiny of the governing policy and the language
employed therein, it becomes evident that the expression
"ordinarily" has been consciously incorporated while referring to
prisoners convicted for certain categories of offences. The word
"ordinarily", by its very semantic import, denotes a general rule or
usual practice rather than an absolute prohibition. In legal
parlance, the expression is employed to signify a rule of guidance
which admits of exceptions depending upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a given case.
6.1. The term "ordinarily" cannot be construed as creating an
irrevocable or permanent disqualification. Rather, it contemplates
that while prisoners convicted for certain offences may not
generally be considered for placement in Open Air Camps, the
competent authority is not divested of its discretion to examine
individual cases where the surrounding circumstances justify a
departure from the general rule. Thus, the presence of the word
"ordinarily" unmistakably indicates that the provision does not
impose a complete or inflexible embargo but merely prescribes a
guiding norm which must yield to exceptional circumstances
warranting a more liberal consideration.
6.2. The philosophy underlying the establishment of Open Air
Camps is rooted in the reformative and rehabilitative approach of
modern penology. Such institutions are designed to facilitate
gradual reintegration of prisoners into the social mainstream by
fostering responsibility, discipline and constructive engagement. To
construe the provision relating to "prohibited offences" as
imposing a blanket and perpetual bar would not only run contrary
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:43:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12221-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-396/2026]
to the textual scheme but would also undermine the reformative
objectives embedded in the penal administration system.
6.3. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the
petitioner's application has been rejected in an exceedingly
cursory and mechanical manner. The committee has merely
recorded that the petitioner was convicted for an offence falling
within the category of prohibited offences and, on that solitary
ground, declined to consider his candidature. The order does not
reflect any independent application of mind to the petitioner's
conduct during incarceration, the period already undergone, or the
possibility of his reformation and reintegration into society.
6.4. Such an approach is inconsistent with the spirit of the
governing rules, which contemplate a meaningful evaluation of the
individual circumstances of the prisoner. When the statutory
framework itself employs the expression "ordinarily", it implicitly
mandates that the competent authority must exercise its
discretion judiciously and examine whether the case of a particular
prisoner warrants consideration notwithstanding the general rule.
6.5. In the present case, the rejection of the petitioner's
application solely on the premise that the offence of conviction
falls within the category of prohibited offences demonstrates a
clear misapprehension of the scope and import of the relevant
provisions. The authority has failed to appreciate that the use of
the word "ordinarily" does not create a complete or permanent
prohibition.
6.6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.03.2025
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:43:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12221-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-396/2026]
passed by the Director General, Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur cannot
be sustained in law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is
ordered that the order dated 19.03.2025 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The application submitted by the petitioner seeking
transfer to an Open Air Camp stands allowed. The competent
authorities are directed to take appropriate steps for placing the
petitioner in an Open Air Camp in accordance with the applicable
rules and administrative formalities.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (FARJAND ALI),J
28-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:43:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
