HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 277/2023 Balbha Ram S/o Sh. Ghashi Ram Jat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Nayagav, Harmada, P/s Bandr Sindri, District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present Confined In High Security Jail Ajmer). Through His Nephew Dinesh Choudhary S/o Sh. Ramrukh Choudhary Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Ramner Ki Dhani (Sardar Singh Ki Dhani) District Ajmer (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(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. JS Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a prayer has been made to transfer the petitioner from Central Jail to Open Air Camp. At the same time, the validity of the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the respondents has also been challenged. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the Rules of 1972’), the petitioner is eligible and entitled for his transfer from Jail to Open Air Camp, but that has been declined on a technical count that two other cases are (2 of 3) [CRLW-277/2023] pending against him. Counsel submits that pendency of other cases cannot be a ground for denial of relief to the petitioner for his shifting to Open Air Camp. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar S/o Shri Kunwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Criminal Writ Petition No.275/2022) and Wasim S/o Shri Kalwa vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Criminal Writ Petition No.514/2022) decided on 13.10.2022. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, out of which one is under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Rules of 1972 are not applicable in the present case, as the NDPS Act is a Central Legislation. Counsel submits that there is no provision for shifting of the prisoners involved in the offence punishable under NDPS Act, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the indulgence. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the State and looking to the fact that the petitioner is involved in other case punishable under NDPS (3 of 3) [CRLW-277/2023] Act, he is not eligible and entitled for the relief as claimed in the instant petition. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/315