Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Chothmal Alias Sunil vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11246) on 7 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:11246]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 298/2026
Chothmal Alias Sunil S/o Shri Narmada Shankar Nagda, Aged
About 37 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur
Thorugh His Father Narmada Shankar Nagda S/o Champalal
Nagda 58 Yrs R/o Revali Devali Ps Nimachcity District Nimach Mp
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Dept Of Home Rajasthan Jaipur
2. The District General Jail, Jaipur
3. The District Collector, Udaipur
4. The Superintendent Central Jail, Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG, with
Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/03/2026
1. The present S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 298/2026 has
been filed by the petitioner-prisoner, namely Chothmal @
Sunil S/o Shri Narmada Shankar Nagda, presently lodged in
Central Jail, Udaipur, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing the decision dated 07.10.2025 taken by the
competent committee whereby the application submitted on
behalf of the petitioner for sending him to an Open Air Camp
under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11246] (2 of 7) [CRLW-298/2026]
came to be rejected, and for a direction to the respondents
to consider the petitioner for transfer to the Open Air Camp
in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 8/18 and
8/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 and came to be convicted by the Court of learned
Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions
Case No.22/2018 (85/2018) vide judgment dated
28.02.2025, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine
of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner is presently undergoing
sentence in Central Jail, Udaipur.
3. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner
has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration
and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory. According to the
nominal roll and factual report placed on record by the
respondents themselves, the petitioner has undergone a
total period of custody exceeding seven years including the
period spent during trial, as calculated up to 03.02.2026. It
is the case of the petitioner that having completed more than
one-third of the substantive sentence and having maintained
satisfactory conduct inside the jail, he became eligible for
consideration for transfer to an Open Air Camp under the
Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972.
4. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner for transfer
to Open Air Camp was placed before the competent
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11246] (3 of 7) [CRLW-298/2026]
committee in its meeting held on 07.10.2025. However, the
committee rejected the petitioner’s case. Aggrieved of the
said decision, the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of the present writ petition, contending that the
rejection of his application is arbitrary and contrary to the
provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules,
1972.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner satisfies all the requirements
prescribed under the Rules of 1972 for being considered for
admission to an Open Air Camp. It was argued that the
petitioner has already completed more than one-third of his
substantive sentence and his conduct in jail has been
recorded as satisfactory. It was further submitted that under
the Rules of 1972 there is no provision which debars a
prisoner convicted under the NDPS Act from being
considered for transfer to an Open Air Camp. Learned
counsel therefore contended that the rejection of the
petitioner’s application merely on account of the nature of
offence is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the
Rules.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that
the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the
competent committee in its meeting held on 07.10.2025
along with several other cases. It was submitted that the
committee examined a large number of cases and after due
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11246] (4 of 7) [CRLW-298/2026]
consideration rejected certain applications including that of
the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate contended that
the decision of the committee is based upon administrative
assessment and the petitioner does not have a vested right
to be transferred to an Open Air Camp.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the material available on record.
8. Before examining the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the
Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. Rule 3 of
the said Rules enumerates the categories of prisoners who
are ordinarily not eligible for being sent to an Open Camp.
The disqualifications prescribed therein relate to certain
specified offences and circumstances. A perusal of Rule 3
indicates that prisoners convicted under the NDPS Act are
not included in the list of ineligible categories.
9. Rule 4 of the Rules provides the conditions for eligibility for
admission to an Open Air Camp. As per the said provision, a
prisoner shall be eligible for admission to an Open Air Camp
if he does not fall within the disqualifications mentioned in
Rule 3, has been regularly performing his scheduled tasks in
jail, and has served one-third of the substantive sentence
including remission.
10. In the present case, the nominal roll placed on record by the
respondents themselves indicates that the petitioner has
already undergone more than seven years of incarceration
including the period of trial custody. The substantive
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11246] (5 of 7) [CRLW-298/2026]
sentence awarded to the petitioner is fifteen years’ rigorous
imprisonment and therefore the requirement of serving one-
third of the sentence stands satisfied. The nominal roll
further records that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has
been satisfactory. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner fulfills the
eligibility conditions prescribed under the Rules of 1972.
11. From the factual report and the minutes of the meeting
dated 07.10.2025 placed on record, it appears that in the
said meeting the committee considered a large number of
cases, out of which a substantial number related to prisoners
convicted under the NDPS Act, and the applications of such
prisoners were rejected. The manner in which the
petitioner’s case has been dealt with indicates that the
rejection has been based primarily on the fact that the
petitioner is a convict under the NDPS Act. However, as
noticed above, the Rules of 1972 do not treat conviction
under the NDPS Act as a disqualification for consideration for
transfer to an Open Air Camp. In the absence of any such
statutory bar, a blanket exclusion of prisoners convicted
under the NDPS Act would run contrary to the scheme of the
Rules.
12. The purpose of the Open Air Camp Rules, as reflected in the
preamble itself, is to encourage good conduct, promote self-
discipline and provide an opportunity for social adjustment to
prisoners who have demonstrated satisfactory conduct
during incarceration. The eligibility for such benefit is
required to be examined on the basis of individual
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11246] (6 of 7) [CRLW-298/2026]
assessment in accordance with the criteria prescribed under
the Rules.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the decision taken by
the committee rejecting the petitioner’s case without
examining the eligibility of the petitioner in the light of the
criteria prescribed under the Rules of 1972 cannot be
sustained. The petitioner’s case ought to have been
considered individually on its own merits instead of being
rejected merely on account of the nature of the offence.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the decision dated 07.10.2025, insofar as it relates to
the petitioner, deserves to be set aside and the matter
requires reconsideration by the competent authority in
accordance with the Rules of 1972.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The decision
taken by the competent committee in its meeting dated
07.10.2025, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, rejecting
his case for transfer to an Open Air Camp, is hereby set
aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case
of the petitioner for admission to an Open Air Camp strictly
in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners
Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 and without treating the
conviction under the NDPS Act as an automatic
disqualification and while doing so, the respondent
authorities shall take into account the order of seniority of
eligible prisoners, as contemplated under the Rules
governing such transfer.
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11246] (7 of 7) [CRLW-298/2026]
16. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and appropriate
orders shall be passed by the competent authority within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
17. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to observe
that the present order has been passed on the peculiar facts
of the case of the petitioner and upon examination of the
decision dated 07.10.2025 to the limited extent it concerns
the petitioner. No opinion is expressed with regard to the
cases of any other prisoners whose applications might have
been considered in the said meeting. However, if there are
other prisoners whose cases came to be rejected solely on
account of their conviction under the NDPS Act, it shall
remain open to the competent authorities to examine such
cases, if so advised, independently and in accordance with
the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 and the
observations made herein.
(FARJAND ALI),J
18-arjun/Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 04:55:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
