[2026:RJ-JD:12136-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 616/2026 Kapil Budaniya S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Shri Gnganagar Through His Mother Smt Sumitra W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar R/o Ward No 11 Sainik Colony District Churu ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Depart Jaipur

2. The Directorgeneral Jail, Jaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Shri Ganganagar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

12/03/2026

1. The present criminal writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the convict-petitioner assailing the adverse decision taken in the meeting dated 30.12.2025 of the State Level Prison Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner’s application for being sent to Open Air Camp was rejected.

2. The record reveals that the petitioner stands convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 460/149 and 323/149 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 01/2021. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 104/2023 is pending consideration before this Court.

3. As per the custody certificate placed on record and not disputed by the respondents, the petitioner has undergone more than one-third of the substantive sentence including remission and his jail conduct has been reported to be satisfactory.

4. The petitioner applied for transfer to Open Air Camp under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. The said application was, however, rejected by the State Level Prison Open Air Camp Advisory Committee primarily on the ground that the petitioner stands convicted for an offence falling within the category mentioned under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of

1972.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection is mechanical, suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the settled legal position that Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 is not mandatory but directory in nature. It was submitted that the expression “ordinarily” occurring in Rule 3 obligates the Committee to examine the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 52/2022 decided on 11.03.2022), as also upon other judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court, wherein adverse recommendations denying transfer to Open Air Camp solely on the basis of the nature of conviction were set aside and the competent authorities were directed to reconsider or grant the benefit of transfer in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned decision and submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious offence and therefore the Committee has rightly rejected his application.

7. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant statutory provision. Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 provides that certain classes of prisoners shall “ordinarily” not be eligible for admission to Open Air Camps.

9. A conjoint reading of Rule 3 with the scheme of the Rules of 1972 makes it abundantly clear that the embargo created under Rule 3 is not absolute. The use of the word “ordinarily” is of significance and cannot be rendered otiose. The Rule does not impose a blanket prohibition but vests a discretion in the competent authority to consider cases falling within the enumerated categories on their own merits keeping in view the object of t