Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxmandas vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2511/2025
Laxmandas S/o Khemchand, R/o House No.107, Gali No.03,
Sanjay A Colony, Police Station Pratapnagar, District Jodhpur
(Raj)
(Presently lodged at Open Air Camp Barmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Home,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Prisoners Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, through its
Director, Directorate Prisons, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Jodhpur.
4. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur Metropolitan
5. Superintendent, District Jail, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order Reportable Order Reserved on : 28/10/2025 Order Pronounced on : 06/12/2025 <><><> [Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman] :
1) The present criminal writ petition challenges the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of first parole for 20 days, after completion of the required sentence with remission, was rejected.
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025]
2) The petitioner was convicted of various offences, including the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, in Sessions Case No. 239/2017 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and he is presently undergoing imprisonment for life in addition to other sentences. The petitioner was initially lodged in the regular prison and was subsequently shifted to the Open Air Camp in view of his good conduct and satisfactory performance of assigned tasks in the jail factory or jail services. Upon the recommendation and approval of the Prisoners Open Air Advisory Committee constituted under Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, the petitioner is now serving his sentence in the Open Air Camp. While serving his sentence there, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, seeking grant of first parole for 20 days on the ground that he had completed the mandatory period of sentence prescribed under the Rules for availing first parole.
3) The District Parole Advisory Committee sought various reports from the Jail Authorities, the Police, and the Probation & Prison Welfare Officer. The Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Barmer, through his letter dated 15.05.2025, recommended the grant of first parole for 20 days. However, the Police Deputy Commissioner, Jodhpur (West), through his letter dated 23.05.2025, did not recommend parole for the petitioner, stating that his release would adversely affect society and disturb public peace. This conclusion was based on the statements of the petitioner's wife, relatives, and neighbours, who objected to the grant of parole and expressed (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] that his release would pose a threat to their lives. The Probation & Prison Welfare Officer also submitted a similar report, declining to recommend parole on the basis of statements from the petitioner's family members and neighbours. Taking into consideration these three reports, the District Parole Advisory Committee rejected the petitioner's request for parole. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4) The issue for consideration before us is whether the District Parole Advisory Committee is justified in rejecting the claim for grant of parole of 20 days on the basis of the reports submitted by the various authorities. Before examining the correctness of such a rejection order, it is appropriate to refer to certain provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958"). The petitioner's conviction was prior to the Rajasthan Parole Rules, 2021, thus, the Rules of 1958 is applicable.
5) The Rule 3 of the Rules of 1958 enables a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year, and who has exhibited exceptionally good behaviour, to submit an application for parole. Such an application must be forwarded through the concerned District Superintendent of Jail. Under Rule 4 of the 1958 Rules, the Superintendent of Jail is required to forward the application, in triplicate in Form No. 1, to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, in consultation with the Probation Officer and the District Superintendent of Police, is required to record remarks on whether the convict should be released on parole. If the District Magistrate has no objection to (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] the release of the prisoner on parole, he must forward all original papers to the State Committee or the District Committee, indicating the conditions on which the prisoner may be released. The District Magistrate is also empowered to disapprove the release; in such a case, the disapproval must be communicated to the concerned Superintendent of Jail.
6) The Rule 5-B of the Rules of 1958 prescribes the procedure for consideration of the District Magistrate's recommendations by the State Committee or the District Committee. The Committee may, if necessary, consult the Presiding Judge of the court that passed the order of conviction, and may accept or reject the application. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1958 empowers the Committee to impose conditions for release in the event the prisoner is recommended for parole. Such release may be subject to bond and security.
7) The Rule 9 is very relevant for the present purpose, which reads as follows:-
"9. Parole Period- A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, one-fourth of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on first parole for 20' days including days of journey to home and back and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the first parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent release on parole on such condition as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned, the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence.
[Provided the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.]"
7.1) A reading of the above Rule, it is clear that parole may be granted either as non-permanent release or as permanent release. The three stages of parole are non-permanent releases. To avail the first parole, a prisoner is required to complete one-fourth of his sentence including remission and must also maintain good conduct in jail. The first parole is for 20 days, which includes the journey time to and from home. The second parole is granted for 30 days, subject to the prisoner's good behavior during the first parole. Similarly, the third parole is for 40 days, and can be granted only if the prisoner's behavior has been good during the second parole. If, during the third parole, the prisoner behaves well, maintains an exemplary character, and demonstrates conduct indicating that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] release on parole, subject to conditions deemed fit by the Superintendent of Jail and the District Magistrate concerned. One important condition is that if the prisoner, while on parole, commits any offence or abets directly or indirectly, the commission of any offence, he must undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence in addition to any other sentence imposed for such offence or abetment. If permanent parole is not granted, the prisoner is entitled to 40 days' parole every year for the remaining period of his sentence. The regular mode of granting permanent parole does not apply to prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or to those sentenced to death whose sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment; such prisoners shall not be eligible for permanent parole before the completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment.
8) The Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 is also relevant in this regard, which reads hereunder:-
"13. Aim of parole to encourage good conduct. - The grant of parole should be regarded as concession to encourage good conduct and it shall not be claimed by prisoners as a matter or right."
8.1) A reading of the said Rule, it is clear that the aim of parole is to encourage good conduct. It is a concession and not a right. As per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958, if a parole granted under Rule 9 is availed without violating the conditions laid down for its grant, such period of stay shall be treated as part of the imprisonment served by the prisoner.
9) The Rule 11 of the Rules of 1958 is also relevant, which reads as follows:-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] "11. Supervision of Probation Officer.- (a) In course of release on parole except the permanent release, the prisoner shall remain under supervision of a guardian approved by the 2 [State Committee/District Committee] who shall report any breach of the conditions of parole to the District Magistrate concerned.
(b) In case of permanent release on parole the prisoner should be under the supervision of a probation officer, where appointed. The supervision of a probation officer will be for the unexpired period of sentence allowed to be spent on parole." 9.1) A reading of the above Rule, it is clear that it prescribes two kinds of supervision: first, supervision by a guardian approved by the State Committee or District Committee for non-permanent parole; and second, supervision by a Probation Officer in relation to permanent parole. The Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958 prescribes who must bear the journey expenses of a person released on parole. If the prisoner is destitute, the Government, after proper enquiry, will bear the travel expenses; in all other cases, the parolee is required to bear the expenses himself.
10) The impugned order of rejection shows that parole was denied on the grounds that the release would adversely affect society and public peace, that the offence for which the parolee was convicted is heinous in nature, and that the petitioner's wife, her relatives and neighbours oppose his release on the ground that it would endanger their lives.
11) A reading of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, it is clear that two conditions are required to be established for the grant of concessional parole. The first is the completion of one-fourth of the sentence including remission, and the second is good conduct (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] in jail. If Rule 9 is read together with Rule 13, it becomes evident that even upon establishing these conditions, parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it is merely a concession intended to encourage good conduct.
12) Normally, a prisoner who is lodged in a general prison is shifted to an Open Air Camp upon establishing good conduct in jail. Before ordering such a shift, the authorities in charge of the prisoner's correction must be fully satisfied with the prisoner's conduct and obedience to jail regulations. Even while forwarding an application for grant of parole, the District Magistrate or the Superintendent concerned has the discretion to reject the application at the threshold, without recommending his case either to the State Level Committee or the District Level Committee. This discretion was not exercised by the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate in the present case. This circumstance also demonstrates that the claim for parole had passed the first stage of scrutiny.
13) The District Parole Advisory Committee's findings are significantly influenced by two reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur (West) dated 23.05.2025 and the Probation & Prison Welfare Officer dated 04.06.2025. These reports indicate that the concerned authorities urged the Committee to reject the parole claim solely on the ground that the petitioner's wife, relatives, and neighbours opposed his release, as he had been convicted for the murder of his own son. Considering the parameters of parole, the very object of parole is to provide a platform for a parolee to transition from State supervision back (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] into the community, reduce the likelihood of re-offence and reincarceration, and promote long-term reintegration. In simple terms, the purpose of parole is rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It offers the parolee an opportunity to demonstrate reformation, readiness to shift from State supervision to community life, and an ability to avoid re-offence, thereby proving that he is fit for reintegration. However, the reports forming the basis for rejection of parole do not indicate any independent assessment of the consequences of the petitioner's release. The conclusions drawn therein are solely based on the statements of the petitioner's wife, relatives, and neighbours. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner was convicted for the murder of his own son. In such circumstances, it is natural that the petitioner's wife would be unwilling to accept reintegration within the family. Likewise, the relatives and neighbours of the petitioner would generally be reluctant to reintegrate him into the community. Their consent is immaterial unless the Law Enforcement Agency independently concludes that the prisoner poses a real threat if released on parole. Such a conclusion requires additional material beyond the oral statements of the petitioner's wife, relatives, and neighbours, which is lacking in the present case.
14) The petitioner's past conduct and behavior inside the jail clearly demonstrate good and approved conduct. Although parole is not a right and is considered a concession, the authorities must keep in mind its primary purpose, which is rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. These objectives form the core rationale for granting parole, and the parole period serves as a test (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] of the correctional measures implemented within the jail. Without proper evidence, the authorities cannot conclude that the petitioner's release would impact the society or public peace merely because he was convicted of a heinous offense. He is neither a hardened nor a habitual criminal. Even assuming that the apprehensions expressed by certain family members are genuine, parole can still be granted while addressing these concerns, for example, by requiring the petitioner to reside outside the regular residence during the parole period.
15) Then the question arose where the petitioner is to be accommodated. Our parole system and its framework do not provide specific provisions for persons who are homeless, guardian-less, or without family. Parole cannot be refused merely because the parolee has no permanent home, no one to care for him, no available guardian, or is indigent. If we examine the concept of parole in some developed countries, particularly in Canada, there are Community Correction Centers and Community Residential Facilities to accommodate parolees and individuals on statutory release who lack a residence or family support. Food and subsistence are provided through case management services, which assist parolees in accessing provincial welfare, community food programs, and other social support. Our parole system does not adequately consider the situations of individuals without a residence or a person who has no one to care for him. However, these shortcomings cannot serve as a valid ground to refuse the grant of parole.
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025]
16) In this regard, two provisions under the Parole Rules are relevant. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958 deals with journey expenses on parole. Upon proof of the parolee's destitution, the travelling expenses shall be borne by the government. Rule 12 also clearly stipulates that a prisoner on parole, without violating the conditions of parole, is entitled to treat such a period as a period of imprisonment served. These provisions create a form of constructive control over the parolee by the prison authorities during the parole period. This means that individuals who do not have a stay or care must take into consideration by the State-level or District-level Parole Committee while granting parole, provided they are otherwise eligible. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1958 imposes a supervisory framework for two categories of parole. For non- permanent parole, the guardian approved by the Committee is required to supervise the parolee and report any violations to the concerned District Magistrate. In the case of permanent parole, it is the Probation Officer who is required to report any violations to the District Magistrate.
17) In the present set up of facts, the Parole Committee is required to approve the guardian. This means that a person who does not currently have a guardian is not barred from having a guardian approved by the Committee. The Committee also has discretion in approving a guardian, who could be the most suitable person to act as a guardian and report any violations to the District Magistrate. This provision refers specifically to guardians and does not limit approval to natural guardian or family members; a guardian may be someone outside the family. Additionally, the (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police, and the Superintendent of the Jail can nominate a guardian, subject to approval by the State-Level or District-Level Committee.
18) In the backdrop of the present facts and circumstances, the petitioner can be considered a person without a residence and without anyone to take care of him due to the reluctance of family or relatives to allow his reintegration with them. The objective of Prisoners' Correctional and Rehabilitation Centers is not family- centric or relative-centric, but community-centric. Reintegration must be assessed in relation to the community, rather than the family or relatives. Persons like the petitioner should be cared for by the government through the provision of appropriate housing, food, and subsistence support, in light of the broader goals of reformation and reintegration into society. Such facilities serve as a bridge between the institution and the community. It is a time for the Government to re-think on its policy of parole by taking care of the situation like the present petitioner and many prisoners who have no residence and no one to take care of them.
19) We are of the view that the Committee failed to appreciate the approved conduct of the petitioner and wrongly influenced by the apprehensions of family, relatives, or neighbors in denying the grant of parole. Parole cannot be dined merely because no guardian is available or no residence to parole. This approach disregards the principles of equality, as it discriminates between prisoners who have a residence or someone to care for them and those who have neither, thereby violating the principle of non-discrimination. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] aside and the request of the petitioner for grant first parole is liable to be allowed with certain conditions.
20) In the result the criminal writ petition is allowed as follows:
i) The petitioner is entitled to the first parole of 20 days, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. The release is also subject to the appointment of a Guardian by the District Level Committee to supervise and report the conduct of the petitioner to the concerned District Magistrate.
ii) The District Level Committee is required to take a decision regarding the nomination of a guardian in consultation with the Superintendent of the concerned jail, the Superintendent/Commissioner of the concerned district, and the concerned District Magistrate. This decision must be taken within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The guardian approved by the Committee is required to report the conduct of the petitioner to the concerned District Magistrate.
iii) The petitioner may be released on parole within a period of two days from the date of appointment of guardian by the Committee. The petitioner shall not enter his original residence or the police station limits of his wife and neighbours.
iv) The State of Rajasthan, represented by the Principal Secretary (Home), Director, Prisoners Open Air Camp (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM) (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52090-DB] (14 of 14) [CRLW-2511/2025] Advisory Committee, District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, and Superintendent of Jail, is required to ensure that the petitioner is provided with residential accommodation, food, and subsistence allowance to cover his stay of 20 days on parole. They shall also provide necessary support for the petitioner's earning during such stay to meet his expenses.
The aforesaid directions shall be communicated to the concerned authorities mentioned above for taking necessary action.
(BIPIN GUPTA), J. (MUNNURI LAXMAN), J.
NK/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:52:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 08:36:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)