IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 7442 of 2008 KIRTA RAM V/S STATE Mr. KR BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. NARENDRA MOOLCHANDANI, PP, for the respondent Date of Order : 9.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. True it is that the main accused Kan Singh has been sent to open air camp, while the petitioner is said to be only conspirator. According to the Parole Committee, since the petitioner is not an ordinary resident of State of Rajasthan, but is a resident of Gujarat, while Kan Singh is said to be resident of Rajasthan only, the case of the two accused cannot be said to be at par. Rule 3(a) is relevant for this purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of this Court, wherein notwithstanding interpreting the provisions of Rule 3(a), the accused convicted by Court Martial was permitted to be sent to open air camp, but then even though the two exceptions about conviction by Court Martial, and prisoner being not ordinarily residing in Rajasthan find place in the same provision, but then the relevance and magnitude of the two disabilities is entirely different. The circumstance of the prisoner, being not ordinarily resident of Rajasthan, has material bearing in deciding the question, as to whether the prisnor could be sent to open air camp or not. Magnitude of the offence, in the present case, being the murder of the co-accused in the open air camp does have its own play, and was required to be considered even in case of Kan Singh, but since Kan Singh is not before us, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation regarding propriety of sending Kan Singh to open air camp, but then looking to the magnitude of the offence, more so in view of the provisions of Rule 3(a), simply because Kan Singh has been sent to open air camp, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to have any direction from this Court to send him also in the open air camp. On our query, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the accused was residing in Gujarat for last about 10 years before the incident. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the request for directing the petitioner to be sent to open air camp. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/