Allowed

Kallu @ Yogender S/O Shri Moolchand v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Jan 2025CRLW/485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A life convict whose application for transfer from Central Jail, Alwar to Open Air Camp was rejected due to pending criminal cases challenged the rejection. Holding mere pendency of cases is no bar and the prisoner met Rule 4 eligibility without Rule 3 ineligibility, the court quashed the order and directed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.01.2024 quashed; respondents directed to shift petitioner from Central Jail, Alwar to Open Air Camp, Alwar; stay and pending applications disposed of.

Kallu @ Yogender S/O Shri Moolchand Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:2766]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 485/2024

¶4

Kallu @ Yogender S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Falen, Police Station Koshi Kalan, Tehsil Chatha, District Mathura (U.p.) (The Petitioner Is Serving His Sentence In Central Jail, Alwar)

¶5

Through His Younger Brother Deepak S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Falen, Police Station Koshi Kalan, Tehsil Chatha, District Mathura (U.p.)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Prisoners Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, Through Its Director, Jaipur.

¶10

Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons Rajasthan, Ghatgate, Jaipur.

¶11

Superintendent Central Jail, Alwar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Pallav Jhalani, Adv. with Mr. Heera Lal Prajapati, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Adv.

¶14

For Respondents : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶16

Order

¶17

20/01/2025

¶18

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner through his younger brother against the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by Open Air Camp Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee') whereby the application for shifting/transferring the petitioner

[2025:RJ-JP:2766]

[CRLW-485/2024]

(2 of 4)

from Central Jail, Alwar to Open Air Camp, Alwar has been declined by the Committee.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the nominal roll of the petitioner, three other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, however in all three criminal cases the petitioner has been granted benefit of bail. Learned counsel also submits that merely pendency of other cases cannot be a ground to refuse the prayer of the petitioner to shift him to Open Air Camp. Learned counsel further submits that as per nominal roll of the petitioner, his jail conduct is satisfactory. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Wasim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.514/2022 , decided on 13.10.2022), Himanshu @ Lovely Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.295/2022 , decided on 27.09.2022) and Bhinva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ( S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1460/2021 , decided on 18.10.2021).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 mainly on the basis of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1972'). 5. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that looking to the fact that three other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, he is not entitled for his transfer from Central Jail, Alwar to Open Air Camp, Alwar and the Committee has not

[2025:RJ-JP:2766]

[CRLW-485/2024]

(3 of 4)

committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal proposition as already laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Wasim (Supra), Himanshu @ Lovely (Supra) and Bhinva Ram (Supra). 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. As per the nominal roll of the petitioner, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the maximum sentence awarded to him is life imprisonment. The petitioner has served the sentence for the period of 10 years, 10 months and 1 day as on 25.09.2024. 9. This Court is of the considered view, that mere pendency of a criminal case is no bar for transfer of a prisoner from Central Jail to Open Air Camp. Since, the petitioner does not suffer from any of the ineligibility provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 and rather, fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down under Rule 4 of Rules of 1972, this criminal writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Wasim (Supra), Himanshu @ Lovely (Supra) and Bhinva Ram (Supra), the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Open Air Camp Advisory Committee qua the petitioner is quashed

[CRLW-485/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:2766]

(4 of 4)

and set aside. The respondents are directed to shift the petitioner from Central Jail, Alwar to Open Air Camp, Alwar.

¶34