##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:45171-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21719/2026 CNR: RJHC010899312026 | URN: CW / 37077U / 2026 Revant Das S/o Shri Mot Das, Aged About 28 Years, At Present Loged In Special Central Jail, Shyalawas Dausa Through His Father Mot Das S/o Shri Keshar Das Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No 24 Regaron Ka Mohalla P.s. Bidasar District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Depart. Jaipur.

2. The Director General, Jail Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Dausa.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati Mr. Sawpan Chouhan For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

18/09/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-2) passed by the Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, Jaipur, whereunder the request of the petitioner for sending him to Open Air Camp was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for the Offence punishable under Section 376D of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 which makes him ineligible for shifting to Open Air Camp.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind as the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner on merits, however, the rejection has been made as if that there is an absolute bar on shifting of a prisoner who has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376D IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is also his submission that Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1972’) does not completely prohibit the consideration of persons convicted for the offence under Section 376D IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, however, there is an exception and any special circumstance is required to be considered case wise which is not done in the present case.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment dated 28.10.2025 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2823/2025: Subhash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

“11. The use of the words “ordinarily be not eligible” cannot be construed to be an absolute bar under the Rules of 1972. There may be exceptions. The prisoners, who are making applications for sending them to open air camp, have to make out exceptional circumstances for making themselves eligible for the purpose of open air camp. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered by the Committee taking into account the special and exceptional circumstances as projected by the petitioner for deviating from the Rules of 1972 and the case of the petitioner has to be accordingly decided.

12. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the present criminal writ petition (parole) by setting aside the impugned minutes of meeting dated 19.03.2025 qua the present petitioner only on the ground that the rejection of the petitioner’s case was made on the basis that his case fell under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972 which does not create an absolute bar for consideration of the petitioner’s case for admission to the open air camp as per the decision of this Court in the case of Sandeep(supra).

13. In the result, the instant criminal writ petition (parole) is allowed. The impugned minutes of the meeting dated 19.03.2025 are set aside qua the present petitioner and the case of the petitioner for sending him to the Open Air Camp is remitted back to the Committee for re- consideration and decision, if the petitioner makes out any special circumstances for deviating from the general ineligibility criteria contemplated under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972.”

4. The petitioner’s case is similar to the facts of the decision on which petition