Allowed¶36

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Phool Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Prisoner transfer – Open Air Camp

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2025CRLW/636/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Open Air Camp transfer Rajasthan; restricted category offence; Rule 3 Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules 1972; word 'ordinarily' not an absolute restriction; Clauses 3(d) and 3(f); Section 396 IPC convict; Article 226 writ petition filed by convict through wife; High Security Jail Ajmer to Open Air Camp Alwar; life imprisonment sentence served including remission; Subhash Chand D.B. Civil W.P. 12020/2013; Krishna 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 582; Geeta Devi 2012 (3) WLC (Raj.) 146.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 qua the petitioner, and direction to the respondents to shift the petitioner from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar. ¶36

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Phool Singh Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 qua the petitioner, and direction to the respondents to shift the petitioner from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, convicted inter alia under Section 396 of IPC (an offence of restricted category) and other offences, is entitled to be shifted/transferred from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar notwithstanding the embargo in the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Despite convictions including restricted-category offences and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the petitioner having served sentence including remission for 9 years, 4 months and 25 days as on 14.01.2023, his transfer could not be refused on that basis.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no valid reason to take a different view from the proposition of law laid down by the different Division Benches of this Court, namely that 'ordinarily' in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 has been interpreted as 'not necessarily', so the respondents cannot refuse to accept and consider applications for transfer to open air camp, subject to other conditions and eligibility.

¶34

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed: the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to shift the petitioner from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prisoner transfer — Open Air Camp — Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Ashutosh Kumar, J., allowed a writ petition under Article 226 filed through the convict's wife against the order dated 24.01.2024 declining transfer of the petitioner from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar on the ground of his conviction under Section 396 of IPC (restricted-category offence) and other cases (including Section 42, Rajasthan Prisons Act, 1894, sentence already served). Adopting the Division Bench line — principally Subhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12020/2013, order dated 30.08.2014, paras 10-11), reiterating Krishna & Anr. (2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 582) and Geeta Devi (2012 (3) WLC (Raj.) 146) — the Court held that the word 'ordinarily' in Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 has been interpreted as 'not necessarily', so respondents cannot refuse to accept and consider transfer applications subject to other conditions. The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 302, 307, 396, 397 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (maximum sentence life imprisonment) and had served sentence including remission for 9 years, 4 months and 25 days as on 14.01.2023. The impugned order was quashed and the respondents were directed to shift the petitioner to Open Air Camp, Alwar.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1233]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 636/2024

¶4

Bharat Singh S/o Shri Phool Singh, R/o Nayak Mohlla, Near Sabji Mandi, Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In High Security Jail, Ajmer).

¶5

Through His Wife - Rinku W/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Nayak Mohlla, Near Sabji Mandi, Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General, Directorate Prison Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Superintendent Of High Security Jail, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. B.R. Choudhary, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

08/01/2025

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner through his wife against the order dated 24.01.2024 whereby the application for shifting/transferring the petitioner from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar has been declined.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner with the prayer to shift/transfer him from High Security Jail, Ajmer to Open Air Camp, Alwar has been rejected on the ground that in another case, the petitioner has been convicted and in this case, the petitioner has also been convicted under Section 396 of IPC, which

[2025:RJ-JP:1233]

[CRLW-636/2024]

(2 of 4)

is an offence of restricted category. Learned counsel further submits that in another case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Prisons Act, 1894 however, the sentence has been served by the petitioner.

¶21

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'). Learned counsel further contends that the validity of the aforesaid Rule has been elaborately examined by the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at 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 coprisoners to Open Air Camp. Learned counsel further contends 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. Criminal Writ Petition No.12020/2013 vide order dated 30.08.2013.

¶22

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sandeep S/o Shri

[2025:RJ-JP:1233]

[CRLW-636/2024]

(3 of 4)

Navrangi Goswami Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.532/2021, decided on 23.11.2021) whereby, the embargo of restricted offence stipulated under Clauses 3(d) and 3(f) of the Rules of 1972 was considered and held that the word “ordinarily” used in the said provision was not an absolute restriction.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash 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

¶30

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). 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.”

[2025:RJ-JP:1233]

[CRLW-636/2024]

(4 of 4)

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

Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 396, 397 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Ac, 1959 and the maximum sentence awarded to him is life imprisonment. The petitioner has served the sentence including remission for the period of 9 years, 4 months and 25 days as on 14.01.2023.

¶36

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

¶37

Stay application and all the pending applications, also stand disposed of.

¶38

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶39

AARZOO ARORA/303

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Phool Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Phool Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahid S/O Hanif Vs State of Rajasthan

Parag Agarwal S/O Shri Sudhindra Mohan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhigan Lal Bunkar S/O Shri Mangu Ram Balai Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Pooja Jangid Wife of Shri Rakesh Khorwal Daughter of Shri Om Prakash Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Uganti Devi W/O Shri Mukesh Kumar Bairwa, Vs State of Rajasthan