Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinit Alias Tinku vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 113/2026
Vinit Alias Tinku S/o Shri Rodi Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Budhji Ka Darwaja, Jagdish Chowk Presently Kothariyo Ki Gali,
Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udapiur. (At Present Lodged
In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home
Department Jaipur. (Raj).
2. The District Collector, Udaipur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG, with
Mr. K.S. Kumawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order 09/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-convict invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.05.2025, whereby the State Government declined the request of the petitioner for permanent parole under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order and consequential directions for grant of permanent parole in accordance with the statutory rules.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
2. The record indicates that the petitioner stands convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.30/2013, vide judgment dated 01.02.2014, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.25,000/-, with a default sentence. The petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur.
3. The nominal roll placed before the Court indicates that the petitioner has undergone approximately 12 years and 05 days of actual imprisonment, apart from 3 years and 02 days of detention during investigation and trial, and has also earned remission during incarceration. In aggregate, the petitioner has completed more than 16 years of sentence including remission. It is also not disputed that since the date of conviction the petitioner has remained continuously incarcerated and has not been released on parole at any point of time.
4. The question of release of prisoners on parole in the State of Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. Rule 9 of the said Rules provides the scheme for grant of parole and contemplates release of a prisoner on first, second and third parole subject to good conduct, and further provides that if the conduct of the prisoner remains satisfactory and the authorities are satisfied that he is not likely to relapse into crime, the case may be recommended to the State Government for permanent release on parole. The proviso to Rule 9 stipulates that in the case of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment for (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026] offences where death penalty is one of the punishments prescribed by law, such cases shall not ordinarily be placed for consideration of permanent parole unless the prisoner has undergone fourteen years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention during investigation or trial. Thus, the statutory scheme makes it clear that a prisoner convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC becomes eligible for consideration of permanent parole upon completion of the requisite period of incarceration. Rule 14 of the Rules also indicates that although certain classes of prisoners, including those convicted under Section 302 IPC, are ordinarily not eligible for release on parole, such cases may still be considered with special reasons having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the conduct of the prisoner. At the same time, Rule 13 of the Rules clarifies that parole is intended as a concession to encourage good conduct among prisoners and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
5. The application submitted by the petitioner for permanent parole was processed in accordance with the Rules and reports were obtained from the District Magistrate, Udaipur, the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, and the concerned department of the State Government. Upon consideration of these reports, the matter was placed before the State Level Parole Committee, which recommended rejection of the request. The State Government accepted the recommendation and by order dated 06.05.2025 declined the petitioner's request for permanent parole.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than sixteen years of incarceration, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement for consideration of permanent parole under the Rules. It is submitted that the jail authorities themselves have certified that the petitioner's overall conduct in prison is satisfactory, and that the disciplinary punishments recorded in the jail record relate only to absence from workshop duties and do not involve any act of violence or misconduct of serious nature. Learned counsel further submits that the adverse reports relied upon by the authorities are largely based on apprehensions expressed by certain local persons and do not reflect any recent conduct of the petitioner during incarceration.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the competent authorities considered the matter on the basis of reports received from the district authorities and the State Government has exercised its discretion in declining the request for permanent parole, which ordinarily should not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. It is well settled that the grant of parole is primarily an administrative function governed by statutory rules, and courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 ordinarily do not substitute their opinion for that of the competent authority. However, judicial review is available where the decision suffers from arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or reliance upon material that does not reasonably sustain the conclusion reached.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
9. In the present case, the impugned decision is primarily founded upon the reports submitted by the district authorities. The report of the Superintendent of Police describes the petitioner as a person of "high temperament" and possessing a "fighter nature" and further records that his release may create danger to family members. The report also indicates that these observations are based upon statements attributed to the petitioner's wife and certain local residents. At the same time, it is not disputed that the petitioner has remained continuously incarcerated since the year 2014 and has not been released on parole at any point during this period. The jail record placed before the Court does not indicate any incident suggesting violent behaviour, aggression, escape attempt, or misconduct reflecting a propensity for serious criminal activity during incarceration. The disciplinary punishments recorded in the jail record relate only to absence from workshop duties and do not disclose any instance of violence or prison disorder.
10. In these circumstances, the characterization of the petitioner as a person of high temperament or fighter nature appears to be based primarily upon perceptions expressed by local sources, rather than upon any contemporaneous incident recorded during his incarceration. Such reports, while relevant for administrative assessment, necessarily represent a precautionary opinion based upon local inputs, rather than a conclusion drawn from recent objective conduct of the prisoner.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
11. The record also refers to an observation that the petitioner is suffering from mental illness. However, the material placed before the Court does not include any psychiatric evaluation report, medical board opinion, diagnosis record, or treatment details substantiating the said observation. In the absence of such supporting medical material, the reference to mental illness appears to be a general remark recorded in the administrative reports rather than a conclusion supported by detailed medical evidence.
12. The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the offence for which the petitioner stands convicted. Nevertheless, the criminal justice system also recognises the importance of reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners, and the scheme of parole embodied in the Rules is intended to balance the objectives of societal safety with the reformative philosophy of punishment.
13. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone substantial incarceration exceeding sixteen years, and the jail authorities themselves have certified his overall conduct in prison to be satisfactory. No material has been placed on record indicating any violent behaviour or serious misconduct during incarceration.
14. In these circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's request for permanent parole appears to have been based primarily on general apprehensions rather than objective material demonstrating present risk.
15. Having regard to the long period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, the satisfactory conduct recorded by (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026] the jail authorities, and the absence of concrete material demonstrating violent behaviour during imprisonment, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 declining the petitioner's request for permanent parole cannot be sustained.
16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner's request for permanent parole is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, subject to the petitioner furnishing the requisite personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned, and subject to compliance with the conditions ordinarily imposed for permanent parole, including maintenance of peace and good conduct.
17. The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer for the unexpired portion of the sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, and shall comply with such lawful directions as may be issued by the said authority from time to time.
18. It shall be open to the competent authority to impose such further reasonable conditions as may be necessary for ensuring maintenance of peace and proper supervision of the petitioner while on permanent parole.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
19. The necessary order for release shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (FARJAND ALI),J
71-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:15:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)