Vinod S/O Shri Murlidhar Vs State of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 284/2022

Vinod S/o Shri Murlidhar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Dola Wali, Tan-Nathawali, P.s. Sahapura, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.), (At Present Confind In Central Jail Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Rajesh Kala
	Mr.	Tekchand Swami
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Amit Punia,PP

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

12/11/2025

¶14

By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, by which the prayer of the petitioner for shifting him from jail to Open Air Camp has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for the prohibited offences and he remained absconded during the period of parole and thereafter, three criminal cases were also registered against him.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, regular parole was granted to the petitioner on three occasions for 07, 15 and 30 days

¶16

[CRLW-284/2022]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

respectively and the petitioner has surrendered before the jail authorities after completion of the aforesaid parole period. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered for his shifting from jail to Open Air Camp. Counsel submits in several matters, the Open Air Camp Advisory Committee has dealt with and considered similar situations and the orders have been passed for shifting of the co-prisoners to Open Air Camp. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that if any prisoner remains absconded during the parole period, then under these circumstances, he is not entitled to be shifted to Open Air Camp in terms of the judgment passed by the Large Bench of this Court in the case of Gajja Ram @ Gajendr vs. State and Ors. (D.B. Crl. Ref.

¶19

No.1/2021). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Committee has not committed any error in passing the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court.

¶20

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the judgment by the Larger Bench, the said Gajja Ram was shifted to Open Air Camp by the orders of the Advisory Committee, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the rival sides, this Court is not going to examine the correctness of the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Advisory Committee,

¶22

[CRLW-284/2022]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

but looking to the fact that certain illustrations have been given by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, which reflect that several similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of shifting to Open Air Camp after remaining absconding after expiry of the period of parole.

¶25

This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Advisory Committee. 8. If such application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the Advisory Committed to decide the said application strictly in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

KuD/147

Vinod S/O Shri Murlidhar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Shri Murlidhar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra @ Jeetu S/O Late Shri Ramlal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gajraj Singh S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhinav Choudhari S/O Shripal Choudhari Vs State of Rajasthan

Deendayal Son of Kehari, Vs Smt. Rekha Wife of Deendayal D/O Jasram

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma, Vs Rajendra Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Moti Lal Yogi