D.B. CIVIL PAROLE PETITION No. 5090/2008 (Jai Kishan Vs. State) Date : 29.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA, J. Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati for the petitioner. - - - - - Petitioner Jai Kishan whose case has not been recommended for sending him to open air prison under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972' hereinafter), has approached this Court by filing this parole writ petition. The facts of the case reveal that petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No. 16/99 for offences punishable under Section 302 & 449 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Petitioner is also convicted in Session Case No. 112/99 for offences under Section 452 & 323 IPC and he has been sentenced for one month imprisonment. Petitioner is convicted in yet another case No. 173/99 and has been sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. Petitioner has already served the sentence in Sessions Case No. 112/99 and 173/99, as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case is not being forwarded for consideration for sending him to open air prison on the ground that petitioner is not eligible for the same in view of Rule 3(f) of Rules of 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that word “ordinarily not eligible” has been considered by Division Bench of this Court and it has been held that it does not mean that it is total denial to the convicts who are falling under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972. So far as legal position is concerned, there may not be any dispute but looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that petitioner has been convicted in three different cases and therefore, on merit, the petitioner is not entitled to be sent to Open air prison and therefore, we are not entertaining this writ petition only for academic purpose and completing the formality of sending the case of petitioner for consideration under Rules of 1972. In our opinion, there is not just reason for giving this benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that conduct of the petitioner was good during detention. This fact may help the petitioner for any other relief but so far as sending him to Open air prison is concerned, that cannot help the petitioner. We are conscious that there is a long queue of prisoners who want to go to Open air prison. Therefore, looking to the fact of availability of place in Open air prison and looking to the claim of other prisoners also, we do not find any just reason for giving any relief to the petitioner. Hence, the Habeas corpus petition is dismissed. (CHAND MAL TOTLA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. bjsh