Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ratan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan … on 8 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:17963-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 456/2025
Ratan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Aged About 39 Years, At
Present Lodged In Special Central Jail, Shyalawas, Dausa
Through His Wife Smt. Raj Kanwar W/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Kuratiya, Dhamcha, Dist. Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Depart. Through Secretary,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General (Jail), Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Special Central Jail, Shyalawas,
Dausa.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG
with Mr. Ashutosh Sharma.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
08/04/2025
1. The instant D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petition filed by convict
– Ratan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, 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 petitioner-convict was
convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 and
394 of IPC with life imprisonment vide judgment dated
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:49:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17963-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-456/2025]
25.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Session
Judge, Bengu, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.29/2015.
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. Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, learned counsel representing the
petitioner-convict submits that the co-accused Shayam Lal was
granted permission to avail the facility of Open Air Camp by an
order of this Court, while adjudicating D.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No.2107/2024 vide order dated 24.10.2024.
4.1. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court
towards the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in D.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No.532/2021 (Sandeep v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 23.11.2021, relevant portion
whereof is reproduced hereunder:
“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,
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(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:49:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17963-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-456/2025]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.”
4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the parameters of word
‘ordinarily’ has construed from the Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972, the
petitioner-convict’s good conduct in Jail during incarceration, the
total remission earned, the overall sentence period, satisfactory
completion of first parole and the precedent law of Sandeep
(supra) and the overall factual matrix of the case warrants
interference of this Court.
5. 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 conduct of the petitioner-
convict in the Jail, during incarceration, was unblemished, and
therefore, the maximum possible benefit of remission has been
given to him. He further submits that the accused petitioner was
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:49:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17963-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-456/2025]
released on first parole and he complied with all the necessary
conditions and surrendered on time.
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) …..
(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
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:49:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17963-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-456/2025]
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.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
14-Zeeshan
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:49:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
