Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2251 (RAJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-20

GOVIND MATHUR, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II

body2011
Hon'ble JAIN-II, J.—Heard the learned amicus curiae and learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. This is a letter petition by convict- Hari Singh s/o Jeevraj Singh, who is presently undergoing sentence at Central Jail, Jodhpur as life convict. 3. By this petition, a prayer is made on behalf of petitioner-prisoner to keep him in Open Air Camp as per provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 [ for brevity, herein after referred to as `the Rules'] by granting present letter petition. 4. Brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner has availed 5 regular paroles and by this letter petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of decision taken by the Committee constituted under the provisions of the Rules, by which petitioner-prisoner's application for sending him in the Open Air Jail was rejected in the meeting held on 2nd May 2011. This Court vide order dated 24th February 2011 passed in D.B. Cr. Parole Writ Petition No. 1100/2011, directed the authorities concerned to decide petitioner's application for sending him to Open Air Camp within three months. 5. The Committee in its meeting held on 2.5.2011 observed that the petitioner did not return to Jail on the appointed day after completion of period of 40 days (14.7.2009 to 22.8.2009) of his (fourth) parole and therefore, rejected his application on the ground of rule 3(c) of the Rules. Aggrieved of the rejection of his application, petitioner has filed present parole petition. 6. Learned amicus curiae Mr. K.R. Bhati submitted that the petitioner has been reporting back into Jail promptly every time after availing regular paroles and only during fourth parole he reported 1 day after the appointed day, for genuine reason of sudden seriousness of his ailing mother. However, there-after, he was granted fifth regular parole and reported back into the prison promptly on the appointed day. It is further submitted that his ailing mother is 85 years old, brother is physically disable and there is no male member in the family to look after his old mother. He is head of the family and would be able to take care of his ailing old mother if he is allowed into Open Air Camp prison. It is further submitted that his ailing mother is 85 years old, brother is physically disable and there is no male member in the family to look after his old mother. He is head of the family and would be able to take care of his ailing old mother if he is allowed into Open Air Camp prison. The petitioner is eligible for admission to Open Air Camp as per Rule 4 of the Rules and the Committee has also considered his application and allowed but thereafter declined to send the petitioner to the Open Air Camp. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, first of all, we would like to consider rule 3(c) of the Rules, which reads as follows: "3. Ineligibility for admission to open air camp.- ............ (c) Persons who have escaped from the jails or who have attempted to escape from a lawful custody. 8. From the perusal of rule 3(c) of the Rules (quoted supra), it appears that if the prisoner has escaped from jail or has attempted to escape from a lawful custody, such prisoner shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to Open Air Camp. In other words, where the petitioner escapped from jail or lawful custody, case of such petitioner for sending him to Open Air Camp jail can not be considered. Admittedly, in this case, during fourth parole, the petitioner reported after one day of the due date. The petitioner, thus, in no manner escaped from jail or lawful custody and thereby does not suffer from ineligibility as prescribed under rule 3(c) of the Rules. 9. Needless to observe that while deciding case of a prisoner for similar relief, this Court laid down law in the case of Gaju Ram vs. State of Rajasthan - D.B. Cr. Misc. Parole Petition No. 1174/2008, decided on 27th March 2008, whereby the Court interpreted the word "ordinarily" occurring in rule 3(c) of the Rules, in addition to other requirements of the Rules applicable for the transfer of any prisoner from jail to open air camp. 10. We can not, therefore, uphold the decision dated 2nd May 2011 taken by the Committee in respect of petitioner and it is accordingly set aside. The petition, thus, succeeds and it is hereby allowed. 10. We can not, therefore, uphold the decision dated 2nd May 2011 taken by the Committee in respect of petitioner and it is accordingly set aside. The petition, thus, succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the Committee, in so far as it relates to petitioner-prisoner Hari Singh s/o Jeevraj Singh, stands set aside. The respondents are directed to consider application of the petitioner afresh in the light of this decision, for sending him to Open Air Camp, within 15 days from receipt of certified copy of this order.