Allowed

Anand Soni v. State

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2021CRLW/465/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a life convict challenging the rejection of his transfer to an Open Air Camp. The Court held that the restriction in the Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules is not absolute and directed the committee to reconsider the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Direction to the Prisoner Open Air Camp Committee to consider the petitioner's application for transfer to Open Air Camp afresh on merits within six weeks.

Anand Soni Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 465/2020

¶3

Anand Soni S/o Sukh Ram, Aged About 27 Years, at present lodged in Central Jail Bikaner through his brother Ram Lal S/o Sukh Ram Aged About 36 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Behind Roadways Depot, Nagaur, P.S. Kotwali, Nagaur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State, through Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director General Jail, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit for Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

12th January, 2021 PER HON’BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.

¶14

This petition is filed by the petitioner, a life convict, assailing the decision of Open Air Camp Committee dated 21.7.20, whereby his application seeking transfer from Central Jail, Bikaner to Open Air Camp, has been rejected by the Prisoner Open Air Camp Committee (‘the Committee’).

¶15

The application has been rejected by the Committee observing that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC, which comes within the purview of inhibition

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLW-465/2020]

¶18

contained in Clause (d) of Rule 3 of Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the Rules’).

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Rule 3 of the Rules, which deals with ineligibility for admission to open air camp, the word “ordinarily” used clearly indicates that for transfer of the prisoners falling in the categories specified under Clauses (a) to (m) of the Rule 3 of the Rules, the bar contained is not absolute and thus, the rejection of the application of the petitioner solely on the ground that he has been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Parvezshah & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writs No.101/19, decided on 13.3.19.

¶20

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State submitted that since the case of the petitioner is covered by the restriction contained in Rule 3 of the Rules, the Committee has committed no error in rejecting the application seeking transfer to Open Air Camp. 5. In Parvezshah’s case (supra), a Bench of this Court while relying upon earlier Bench decisions of this Court in Gaju Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B.Misc. Parole Writ Petition No.1174/08 and Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan: [2002 (1) Cr.L.R (Raj.), 460], laid down that the inhibition covered by Rule 3 of the Rules regarding transfer of the prisoners to Open Air Camp cannot operate as absolute bar and the application on behalf of the convict has to be considered on merits after due application of mind, keeping in view the spirit of the provisions of the said rule. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed. The Prisoner Open Air Committee is directed to consider

¶21

(3 of 3) [CRLW-465/2020]

¶22

the application of the petitioner Anand Soni seeking transfer to Open Air Camp afresh on merits keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Gaju Ram & Mohan Lal’s cases (supra), followed in Parvezshah’s case (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶24

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶25

18-Aditya/-

Anand Soni v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Soni v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagrol Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Manohar Lal Pareek

The Coordinator Vs Purva Rajpurohit

N. D. Bhootara Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jodhpur Central Co-Oprative Bank Ltd. Vs Lrs

Rajendra @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanwar Lal Vs State