Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harpal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53297-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3249/2025
Harpal Singh S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 33 Years, At
Present Lodged In Open Air Camp Pali Through His Mother Smt
Saroj Kanwar W/o Omprakash Aged About 51 R/o 2Nd Face
Pahadganj Near Shiv Mandir Ps Mandor District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Depat.
Jaipur
2. The Director Genral Jail, Jaipur
3. The District Collector, Jodhpur
4. The Dy. Superintedent, District Jail Pali
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 09/12/2025
1. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2025 (Annex.1) passed by the Joint Secretary of Government of Rajasthan whereby his application for permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules was rejected on 09.10.2025 solely on the ground that owing to his concurrent conviction under Section 397 IPC, he is ineligible for the same.
2. The petitioner has been in custody for over 14 years pursuant to his conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 397 vide judgment dated 02.11.2012 in Sessions Case No. (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:48:23 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:55:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53297-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-3249/2025] 17/2011. With remissions, he has completed more than 19 years of sentence. He has been granted parole on four earlier occasions, all availed without any adverse incident. He is presently lodged in the Open Air Camp.
3. Having thus spent more than 14 years (and 19 years with remission) his request for permanent parole was declined by the competent authority citing Rule 14 (d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as "The Rules"). Impugned order is passed on the premise that Rule 'd' of the Rules of 1958 envisages that the persons convicted for the offences mentioned therein shall not be ordinarily granted parole.
4. For ready reference Rule 14 of the Rules ibid is produced hereinbelow:-
"14. Ineligibility for release. - The following classes of prisoners will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole:-
(a) persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial or a Court of another State;
(b) Persons convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;
(c) Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police custody or attempted to escape;
(d) Persons who have been convicted for offences under sections 121 to 140,216A, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332, 364, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395,396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
unless they have undergone [one-fourth] of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentenced u/s. 302 I.P.C. the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole."
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:48:23 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:55:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53297-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-3249/2025] The bare perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that the classes of prisoners categorized therein are not to be released on parole "ordinarily" and thus it is not in absolute bar in considering their eligibility.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the expression "ordinarily not eligible" in Rule 14(d) does not create an absolute bar. He would urge that prolonged incarceration, unblemished conduct of the petitioner and his successful paroles in past constitute exceptional circumstances warranting consideration. Hence, the impugned order rejecting permanent parole is not sustainable.
6. We find ourselves in agreement with the stand taken by learned Court for parole. In fact, the meaning and import of the word "ordinarily" was subject matter of interpretation before this Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 4236 of 2001] decided on 04.01.2002 wherein the Division Bench opined as below:-
"9. Thus, there is no absolute impediment in considering the application for release of persons falling in category
(a) to (d), after they have undergone 1/4 of the sentence, providing for such release on parole, exist to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent in consultation with the District Magistrate. If the two authorities in consultation, agree that the special reasons exist for release of any person falling in the category (a) to (d) on parole after completion of their 1/4 sentence, ordinarily such parole cannot be refused.
10. In view of above, we do not find that there is any discrimination affecting the fundamental rights of the prisoners as a class u/Arts. 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution. Since such convicts are sentenced in accordance with due authorities of law, their setting free before expiry of term of sentence depends only on the (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:48:23 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:55:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53297-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-3249/2025] permission of rule governing such premature or temporary release. All the categories included in Cls. (a) to (d) or founded an criterion having reasonable nexus with the object for framing rules providing an exception to continued serving the sentence in unbroken period on purely humanitarian approach to life of the prisoners.
Primary object of criminal law viz. bring to book those who have breached the Code of Conduct of discipline to be maintained by any organised society. Right to freedom of those who have committed the offences violating the basic norms necessary for peaceful co- existence of society with a sense of security in smooth maintenance of law and order, has to be weighed against danger that is likely to affect that sense of security and maintenance of rule of law and effective implementation of judicial orders. All the grounds that have been stated in category (a) to (d) are designed to maintain that balance between these two competing claims. The classification therefore cannot be held to be arbitrary or unjust or irrational.
11. Any case of non-consideration by the authorities without application of mind can be brought before the Court. It is desirable that in such case where a prisoner whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan, his parole application is not rejected by merely referring to R. 14. But genuine efforts should be made to find out the correctness of the address, the antecedents of the prisoner in the State of origin in which place of his ordinary residence is situated; his reputation in the locality in the place of ordinary residence and the circumstances in which release on parole is requested and order is made on such premises, the purpose of R. 14 is served; rather than in not entertaining the application at all. It may be cautioned what shall constitute "special reason" within the meaning of R. 14 is not capable of exhaustively defined. Suffice it to say that saying that the causes which routinely occur may not be a ground for release. It ought to some exempliant circumstances."
7. In light of the judgment ibid, with which we concur, and having given our careful thought to the facts and circumstances as enumerated in the preceding part of this order, we are of the view that given the conduct of the convict, he is entitled to the concession of parole. He was earlier released on first 20 days (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:48:23 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:55:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53297-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-3249/2025] parole from 12.08.2016 to 31.08.2016 and second 30 days parole from 18.11.2017 to 17.12.2017 and third 40 days parole from 23.08.2020 to 01.10.2020 thereafter the petitioner is in jail from last 14 years and showed good conduct during the jail and during Open Jail period. Moreover, it transpires that the petitioner is currently been given the benefit of being in Open Air Camp. There is nothing adverse reported against him for misusing the concession granted to him in the past. In totality of facts and circumstances, he deserves the benefit for being released on permanent parole.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.10.2025 (Annex.1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum or Rs.50,000/- along with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of concerned Central Jail.
9. The petitioner shall mark his presence twice in a year before the SHO of the police station in whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides.
(FARJAND ALI),J (ARUN MONGA),J
8-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:48:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:55:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)