Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Hakim Alias Hakim vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46444-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2632/2025
Abdul Hakim Alias Hakim S/o Alhabux, Aged About 60 Years, At
Present Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer Through His Daughter Smt
Sureya Bano D/o Abdul Hakim Alias Hakim Aged About 40 R/o
Pinjaro Ka Mohala Behind Jetha Marker PS Kotwali District
Nagour.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Nagour.
3. The Superintendent Central Jail, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
assisted by
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 28/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of emergent parole. The case of the accused-petitioner is that the wife of the accused-petitioner is suffering from mental illness and requires family care; as such, the accused-petitioner has presented an application before the appropriate authority for the grant of emergent parole. The authorities, after considering the case of the accused-petitioner as well as the mental illness of the wife of the accused-petitioner, have rejected the application for the grant of emergent parole on the ground that there are other family members who are able to take care of the wife of the (Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:50:02 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2025 at 07:11:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46444-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLW-2632/2025] accused-petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife is suffering from mental illness and the Medical Board has also certified that the patient requires constant monitoring by the family members to take care of the condition of the petitioner's wife. As such, his presence will boost her recovery from mental illness. He also submits that the petitioner has been on bail for more than 30 years and there is no occasion to reject the emergent parole. As such, he prays for allowing the present writ petition.
3. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the reasons assigned for the rejection of emergent parole require no interference. He further submits that there are two major sons who are able to take care of the wife of the accused-petitioner and there is no need for the petitioner's presence. Further, the illness which is the ground sought for consideration of emergent parole is not a critical illness so as to take a humanitarian approach to the medical condition of the wife of the accused-petitioner.
4. Having considered the above contentions and having gone through the impugned order of rejection of emergent parole, it is observed that the rejection was on the ground that there are other family members who can take care of the condition of the petitioner's wife.
5. Rule 10-A of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') requires that the illness must not be a general illness; it must be a (Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:50:02 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2025 at 07:11:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46444-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLW-2632/2025] critical illness which could be one of the grounds for taking a humanitarian approach for the grant of emergent parole.
6. In the present case, there is no such critical condition so as to warrant the petitioner's presence and denying such an opportunity to the accused-petitioner would not be an inhuman approach. In the present case, the illness sought to be made a ground for the grant of parole is not a critical illness so as to warrant immediate grant of emergent parole to the accused- petitioner and the authorities have rightly considered the grounds and rightly assigned the reasons for rejection of emergent parole. As such, the present writ petition requires no interference by this Court.
7. In the result, the present writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- petitioner to take recourse to the ground enumerated under Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958, if the need arises.
(BIPIN GUPTA), J. (MUNNURI LAXMAN), J.
6-PoonamS/Divya/-
(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:50:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/10/2025 at 07:11:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)