Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1008 (RAJ)

Gitanjali v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-03

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. By way of this criminal parole petition, the petitioner- Geetanjali being the wife of the convict-Shahjad Khan, presently lodged at the Central Jail, Jodhpur has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the convict for being sent to the Open Air Camp. 2. The respondents along with their reply have placed on record copy of the adverse recommendations dated 30.04.2018, drawn in the meeting of the Committee constituted to consider the cases of the prisoners for being sent to the Open Air Camp. The Committee considered the case of the convict-Shahjad Khan and did not find him entitled to be sent to the Open Air Camp in view of the restriction imposed by Clauses (f) and (g) of Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (herein after referred as the Rules of 1972). 3. Shri Rakesh Kalla, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the convict has been granted emergent parole by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur and regular parole by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2019 passed in D.B. Criminal Writs No. 461/2018 hence, there is no impediment on the right of the convict for being sent to the Open Air Camp. He urged that sending the convict to the Open Air Camp is an essential step for his restoration and reintegration in the society. He thus craved acceptance of the writ petition and sought a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for being sent to the Open Air Camp. 4. Per contra, Shri Farzand Ali, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the convict Shahjad Khan has been convicted in four criminal cases, details whereof are set out in the reply. Out of these four cases, two involve the offence of murder. He thus urged that the restriction imposed by Rule 3 (f) of the Rules of 1972 clearly disentitles the convict from being sent to the Open Air Camp. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. He thus urged that the restriction imposed by Rule 3 (f) of the Rules of 1972 clearly disentitles the convict from being sent to the Open Air Camp. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. The respondents have set out the details of criminal cases registered against the convict in the reply, as per which, the convict-Shahjad Khan has been sentenced to life imprisonment in two cases involving murder and apart from that he has been convicted in two more criminal cases. Thus, four convictions are recorded in the name of the convict. Rule 3 (f) of the Rules of 1972 reads as below:- 3. Ineligibility for admission to open air camp: - The following classes of prisoners shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to Open Camp:- (a) Prisoners whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial. (b) Prisoners convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. (c) Persons who have escaped from the jails or who have attempted to escape from a lawful custody. (d) Prisoners who have been convicted of an offence or 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). (e) Prisoners who have been sentenced to less than five years imprisonment. (f) Prisoners who are habitual with more than two previous convictions of imprisonment to their credit. (g) Prisoners whose conduct in the jail is not good provided that a prisoner who would have not received any jail punishment for two years preceding the date of the recommendations of his name for admission to the Open Camp may be considered eligible. (h) Prisoners who are below 25 years of age and above 60 years of age. (i) Prisoners who are lunatic or have mental deficiency or are physically incapacitated. (j) Prisoners who have no fixed abode in Rajasthan. (k) Detunes and Civil Prisoners. (l) Prisoners convicted for vagrancy. (m) Prisoners who are unmarried 6. (h) Prisoners who are below 25 years of age and above 60 years of age. (i) Prisoners who are lunatic or have mental deficiency or are physically incapacitated. (j) Prisoners who have no fixed abode in Rajasthan. (k) Detunes and Civil Prisoners. (l) Prisoners convicted for vagrancy. (m) Prisoners who are unmarried 6. As per Clause (f) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972, the prisoners who are habitual with more than two previous convictions of imprisonment to their credit are not ordinarily eligible for being sent to the Open Air Camp. Manifestly, the convict-Shahjad Khan is a habitual criminal having more than two convictions of which two involved the offence of murder. 7. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the restriction contained in Rule 3 (f) would clearly act to his detriment. As a consequence, he is not entitled to lay a claim for being sent to the Open Air Camp. Thus, the respondents were perfectly justified in rejecting his application by the impugned recommendations dated 30.04.2018 which do not suffer from illegality or infirmity whatsoever. Hence, we find no merit in the instant parole writ petition, which is rejected as such.