Munshi Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

In this matter, the petitioner Munshi Ram S/o Lal Chand who is serving sentence in Open Air Camp at Jaitsar, Sriganganagar has made the prayer for consideration of the case of his father-prisoner Lal Chand, who is about 85 years of age and is undergoing sentence in Central Jail at Bikaner. It appears that earlier too, the said prisoner Lal Chand made a petition in this Court being Parole Petition No. 6245/2013 stating grievance against non-consideration of his case for transfer to Open Air Camp with reference to the clause (h) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, which provides an ineligibility for admission to Open Air Camp to the persons above the age of 65 years. This Court considered and disposed of the said petition on 27.05.2013, inter alia, with the following observations:-

Convict-prisoner Mr. Lalchand is admittedly an old man of 85 years and his son Munsi Ram, who too was convicted alongwith his father, has already been admitted to open air camp. The provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 are directory in nature and deviation from that is permissible in exceptional circumstances. The case in hand is certainly an exceptional one in view of the fact that necessary care of the petitioner can very well be taken at open air camp by his son Munsi Ram, who has already been transferred to open air camp.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, we deem it appropriate to accept this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for admission to open air camp as per the provisions of the Rules of 1972, by ignoring the condition prescribed under clause (h) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972.

It appears that after the aforesaid requirement by this Court, the respondents proceeded to consider the case of the prisoner concerned but chose to decline the prayer for transfer to Open Air Camp now with reference to the length of imprisonment served by him and with the observations that the other prisoners senior to him in terms of the length of serving were yet to be shifted to Open Air Camp.

The present petitioner Munshi Ram has stated in the petition that his father, who is 85 years of age, does not require any separate accommodation and would be residing with him only; and thereby, the rights of any other prisoner would not be curtailed.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the age of the prisoner concerned, the observation already made by this Court (as reproduced hereinabove), and the submissions made by the son of the prisoner in the present petition, we are clearly of the view that the respondents ought to examine the matter from realistic point of view rather than standing on unnecessary ceremonies. The rules which are meant for balancing the requirement of serving of the sentence with other humanitarian considerations cannot be applied in a perfunctory manner.

The submissions made by the present petitioner that his father-prisoner would be sharing accommodation with him only deserves to be considered by the respondents with reference to all the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove. This petition is accordingly allowed in the manner that the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the convict prisoner Lal Chand S/o Sewa Ram with reference to the order dated 27.05.2013 as passed in Parole Petition No. 6245/2013 as also the observations made hereinabove. Appropriate decision in regard to the prisoner concerned ought to be taken at the earliest, preferably within 30 days from today.