[2026:RJ-JD:8593-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 383/2026 Gopiram S/o Shri Chetan Ram, Aged About 40 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar, Through His Wife Maya Devi W/o Shri Gopiram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 3 Ksd Sukh Chainpura Ps Samija Koti, District Sri Ganganagar ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Department Jaipur

2. The District General, Jail Jaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Shri Ganganagar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

16/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for transferring him in the open air camp at Sriganganagar.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is eligible for sending him to the open air camp as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 however, the committee for sending the convicts in the open air camp in its meeting dated 19.03.2026 has wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in the identical situation the criminal writ petition No. 2823/2025 filed by the co-convict Subhash has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner may also be allowed in terms of the order dated 28.10.2025.

4. Learned AAG has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, however, he is not in a position to refute the fact that in the case of co-convict Subhash, the writ petition filed by him was allowed vide order dated 28.10.2025 and there is no stark difference between the case of the co-convict Subhash and the present petitioner.

5. We have considered the submissions made before us and gone through the relevant record of the case. The fact that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than 8 years is on record. It is also a fact that similarly situated co-convict Subhash has also preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

28.10.2025 in the following terms:-

“8. We have gone through the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1972. The relevant Rule 3 (d) & (f) of the Rules of 1972 which contemplates ineligibility criteria for admission to the Open Air Camp which reads as follows:- “3. Ineligibility for admission to open air camp:- The following classes of prisoners shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to Open Camp:-

(a) ….. (b) ….. (c) …..

(d) Prisoners who have been convicted of an offences under Sections 121 to 130, 216A, 224, 2125, 231, 232, 303, 311, 328, 333, 376, 377, 383, 392 to 402, 435 to 440, and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).

(e) ……

(f) Prisoners who are habitual with more than two previous convictions of imprisonments to their credit.

(g) …… (h) …… (i) …… (m)..…

It is also relevant to refer to Rule 4 which makes the prisoner eligible for admission to open air camp which reads as follows:- “4. Eligibility for admission to Open Camps:- A prisoner shall be eligible for admission to an Open Air Camp:- (a) He does not fall within any of the categories specified in Rule 3 above.

(b) ……. (c) …...

10. In the present case, the petitioner’s case was found to fall under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972, and the Committee constituted under the Rules has considered the case of the petitioner for sending him to the Open Air Camp and rejected his application only on the ground that the case of the petitioner fell under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972. As per the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep (supra)[referred to hereinabove] has taken the view that the words “shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent the prisoner to the open air camp” do not absolutely prohibit the entitlement of the