Transfer To Open Air Camp Can't Be Denied Solely Citing Gravity Of Offence: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Rape Convict
While allowing the application of a rape convict to be shifted open air camp, Rajasthan High Court held that even though such transfer was not a matter of right, it could not be denied by applying a straight jacket formula of solely relying on the nature of offence, without considering other relevant factors. The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the embargo created under the Rule 3 of...
While allowing the application of a rape convict to be shifted open air camp, Rajasthan High Court held that even though such transfer was not a matter of right, it could not be denied by applying a straight jacket formula of solely relying on the nature of offence, without considering other relevant factors.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the embargo created under the Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (“Rules”) was not absolute or did not impose a blanket prohibition. Rather, it vested discretion with the competent authorities.
The Court was hearing the petition filed by the convict challenging the adverse recommendations by the State Level Prison Open Air Camp Advisory Committee (“Committee”) that rejected petitioner's application for being sent to open air camp.
The petitioner was a rape convict, sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment out of which he had undergone one third of the substantive sentence. His jail conduct was found to be satisfactory, and his conduct during first parole was also satisfactory.
However, his application for transfer to open air was rejected primarily on the ground that he was convicted for an offence that fell under the category of ineligibility under Rule 3 of the Rules.
Rule 3 of the Rules laid down prisoners who shall ordinarily not be eligible for admission to open air camps.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that the word “ordinarily” used in Rule 3 was significant and could not be rendered otiose. It meant that the Rule did not impose any blanket prohibition, rather granted discretion to authority to consider cases falling within the enumerated categories.
Reference was made to the coordinate bench decision in Ajit Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. that held, “…that mere conviction for an offence mentioned in Rule 3 cannot be the sole criterion for rejection and that the competent authority is required to conside the individual facts of each case. It was further observed that apprehensions based on conjectures, without any material on record, are extraneous and unwarranted”.
The Court stated that the object of the Rules was reformative in nature, and the purpose was to encourage good conduct, self-discipline and gradual integration in society.
It was highlighted that the recommendations of the Committee did not disclose any consideration of the petitioner's jail conduct, or the period of sentence already served, or the satisfactory parole conduct, and focused only on the nature of offence.
The Court held that the apprehension expressed by the State was speculative and hence the recommendations were contrary to law.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the convict was directed to be shifted to suitable open air camp within one month.
Title: Mahaveer v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79