[2026:RJ-JD:12026-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 928/2026 Kanti Lal S/o Shri Ramaram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kalbi Vash, P.s. Mandar, District Sirohi Raj, At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur, Through His Wife Narami Devi W/o Kanti Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kalbi Vash, P.s. Mandar, District Sirohi, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Homedepartment, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj..

2. The Director General (Jail), Jaipur Raj..

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur Raj..

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

13/03/2026

1. The present writ petition (parole) has been filed assailing the order of rejection of the petitioner’s application for sending him to the Open Air Camp on the ground that the petitioner falls under the ineligibility criteria under Section 3(d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1972’).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other sentences.

3. The petitioner has filed an application to the concerned Committee for sending him to the Open Air Camp. The Committee constituted under the Rules of 1972 has considered the case of the petitioner and his application was rejected only on the ground that he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act which make him ineligible to be sent to the Open Air Camp as provided under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972.

4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, his conviction under the aforesaid provisions does not ipso facto disentitle him from consideration for sending him to the Open Air Camp.

5. It is also his contention that the words “ordinarily be not eligible” more particularly the word “Ordinarily” as is found in Rule 3(d) has been considered by the another Division Bench of this Court while deciding D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 532/2021 (Parole) titled as “Sandeep Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, decided on 23.11.2021. The above-said Division Bench has held that Rules 3 and 4 do not absolutely prohibit entitlement of the prisoners falling in the class enumerated in Rules 3 and 4 from being sent to the Open Air Camps and each case should be considered taking into consideration the special circumstances to be made out by the prisoner, which can be exceptional to the ordinarily making the prisoner ineligible under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972.

6. Therefore, it is also his contention that the impugned order shows that the rejection of the application was made only on the ground that the conviction was made under Sections 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act and that it has not considered any special or exceptional circumstances existing in the matter. The conditions which make the prisoner ineligible under Rules 3 and 4 have not been properly considered by the Committee. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan submits that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act and the same are disqualification in the eligibility criteria as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1972. The petitioner is also facing several different trials in respect of four other offences and those trials are pending. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner for sending him to the Open Air Camp has rightly been considered by the Committee and the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Committee.

8. We have gone through the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1972. The r