[2025:RJ-JP:1233] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 636/2024 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). Through His Wife - Rinku W/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Nayak Mohlla, Near Sabji Mandi, Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General, Directorate Prison Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Superintendent Of High Security Jail, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.R. Choudhary, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 08/01/2025 1. 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. 2. 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] (2 of 4) [CRLW-636/2024] 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. 3. 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 co- prisoners 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. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. 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] (3 of 4) [CRLW-636/2024] 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. 6. 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:- "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). 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] (4 of 4) [CRLW-636/2024] 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Stay application and all the pending applications, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA/303