A prisoner who meets the eligibility criteria for transfer to an Open Air Camp and who has behaved well during his incarceration cannot be denied transfer solely because he has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to transfer him from Central Jail, Bikaner to Open Air Camp.

2. The petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 302, 201 IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment vide judgment dated 14.8.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 45/06. While undergoing the life sentence, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 21.12.13 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 24/12 for committing murder of the Jailor Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment extending to whole of the remaining period of natural life. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 14.8.07 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 45/06 was allowed by this Court and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.12.13 passed in Sessions Case No. 24/12 has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 4.10.19 in Appeal No. 55/14.

3. The petitioner preferred an application seeking transfer to the Open Air Camp under the provisions of Rajasthan Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short "the Rules"). The application stood rejected by Prisoners Open Air Camp Advisory Committee ('the Committee') vide its decision dated 15.4.19, observing that the petitioner has been convicted for murder of the jailor Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatt and he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for remaining period of natural life. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.7.20 passed in D.B. Cri. Writ Petition No. 462/19 with the directions in the following terms:

"Having considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and after going through the impugned recommendations and the contents of the reply filed by the learned AAG and the Rules of 1972, we are duly satisfied that the reasoning offered by the respondents for denying opportunity to the petitioner to be sent to the Open Air Camp is absolutely unsustainable as the same is not in consonance with the Rules of 1972. Thus, the impugned minutes are set aside qua the petitioner. The competent authorities are directed to objectively reconsider the case of the petitioner for being sent to the Open Air Camp without being prejudiced by the earlier recommendations."

4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court as aforesaid, the case of the petitioner for transfer to Open Air Camp was reconsidered by the Committee in its meeting held on 27.10.20. The application of the petitioner for transfer to Open Air Camp has been again declined by the Committee for the reasons recorded in the following terms:

^^vfèk{kd] dsUnzh; dkjkx`g] chdkusj us muds i=kad 12510 fnukad 11-09-2020 }kjk canh dk dkjkx`g esa vkpj.k larks"kinz crk;k gS] fdarq canh }kjk dsUnzh; dkjkx`g] tksèkiqj esa fu#}hdj.k ds nkSjku dkjkiky ¼tsyj½ dh gR;k dkfjr dh xà gS rFkk n.Mkfèkdkjh U;k;ky; ls'ku U;k;kèkh'k] tksèkiqj }kjk canh dks iq.kZ thoudky rd vkthou dkjkokl ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA

;fn canh dks [kqyk canh f'kohj esa Hkstk tkrk gS rks u dsoy tsy iz'kklu grksRlkfgr gksxk cfYd ,slh ?kVuk dkfjr djus okys cafn;ksa dk gkslyk Hkh cqyan gksxkA

vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh ikyuk esa canh ds izdj.k ij iqufoZpkj dj lfefr }kjk loZlEEkfr ls canh ujsaUnz mQZ Hkwjk iq= czge flag dks [kqyk canh f'kohj esa ugha fHktok;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA**

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that apparently, the prayer of the petitioner for transfer to the Open Air Camp has been declined by the Committee adopting the same reasoning which was not found to be sustainable by this Court while remanding the matter for fresh consideration vide order dated 20.7.20. Learned counsel submitted that earlier the respondent had r