Allowed

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2024CRLW/261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the refusal to shift him to an Open Air Camp. Relying on Division Bench precedents interpreting Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to transfer the petitioner to the Open Air Camp.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and directed respondents to shift the petitioner from Central Jail to Open Air Camp.

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50341]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 261/2023

¶4

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal, Residence of Village Dabich PS Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (At present confined in central jail sewar bharatpur) Through His Brother Mukesh Gujar Son of Shri Devpal, Residence of Village Dabich, P/s Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through the Director General Directorate Prison Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent of Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

06/12/2024

¶14

By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the respondents by which the prayer of the petitioner for shifting from Central Jail to Open Air Camp has been declined.

¶15

Counsel submits that the reason for passing of the aforesaid rejection order is that apart from the instant case, in other three criminal cases, the petitioner has been convicted. Counsel submits that in other three criminal cases, the petitioner has already completed his sentence and now, he is undergoing the sentence in the instant case only and apart from the above, no other case is pending against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the

[2024:RJ-JP:50341]

[CRLW-261/2023]

(2 of 4)

respondents have passed the impugned order on the basis of the Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short, "the Rules of 1972"). Counsel submits that validity of the aforesaid Rule was elaborately examined by the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Narendra Singh @ Mukesh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.506/2020, vide order dated 22.01.2021 finally, order was passed for shifting of the co-prisoners to Open Air Camp.

¶20

Counsel submits that in the case of Shambhu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.28/2023) decided by the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, vide order dated 06.02.2023 the benefit of shifting to Open Air Camp has been granted to the petitioner against whom other criminal cases were pending and the same view was taken by the other Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shubhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12020/2013 vide order dated 30.08.2013.

¶21

Lastly, he argued that considering all the above judgments referred hereinabove, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aatish Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1638/2021 vide order dated 23.03.2022 has allowed the similar identical petition, therefore, the orders be passed in the instant case also.

¶22

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the embargo contained under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 and looking to the fact that in other three criminal cases, the petitioner

[2024:RJ-JP:50341]

[CRLW-261/2023]

(3 of 4)

was convicted, hence under these circumstances, the respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the impugned order, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶27

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash

¶28

Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12020/2013 , vide order dated 30.08.2014 reiterating its earlier view in Krishna & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 582 & Geeta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2012 (3) WLC (Raj.) 146 , has held in paras 10 and 11 of the said Judgment, ad-infra:-

¶29

"10. Since rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 has already been considered and the word ‘ordinarily’ has already been interpreted as ‘not necessarily’, therefore, respondents cannot refuse to accept and consider the applications of the petitioners, subject to other conditions. The present matters are fully covered by decisions of this Court in Krishna & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) & Geeta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).

¶30

11.In view of above discussion, we allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to accept and consider the applications of the petitioners for their transfer to open air camp, in accordance with law and in case they are otherwise eligible, as early as possible, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:50341]

[CRLW-261/2023]

Keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down by the different Division Benches of this Court, therefore, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.

¶35

In view of the above, the instant petition stands allowed. The impugned order qua the petitioner stands quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to shift the petitioner Central Jail to Open Air Camp.

¶36

Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶38

Aayush Sharma /324

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Jai Narayan S/O Mohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeetram S/O Hariram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahadev S/O Shri Lal Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nagama D/O Mo. Anwar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Devanshu Verma S/O Shri Giriraj Verma, Vs Central Bureau of Investigation