Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that a convict-petitioner was entitled to first parole for 20 days, setting aside its rejection based mainly on police apprehensions of possible conflict with the complainant side and a perceived risk to his safety. The Court said such concerns, without concrete material, could not by themselves justify denial of parole where jail conduct was satisfactory, and directed release on bond and sureties, with liberty to impose suitable conditions during parole.

The petitioner, a convict lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur, filed a criminal writ petition seeking release on first regular parole for twenty days. His application had earlier been considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, which rejected the request by recommendations dated 08.12.2025 primarily on the basis of adverse police opinions. The petitioner contended that the rejection was based on mechanical and extraneous considerations despite his eligibility under the applicable rules and satisfactory conduct in jail.

Also Read: Landowners Who Authorize Developers To Construct And Sell Flats Cannot Be Held Jointly Liable For Construction Delays : Supreme Court

The State submitted a reply asserting that the Committee’s recommendations were based on material placed before it, including police reports, and did not warrant interference. The minutes of the Committee’s meeting reflected that reports were obtained from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, the Probation and Jail Welfare Officer, and the police authorities. While the jail authorities reported satisfactory conduct during incarceration, the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, expressed apprehension of breach of peace due to continuing animosity between the petitioner and the complainant party from the same village, and referred to the possibility of confrontation and threat to the petitioner’s life.

The Court recorded that “A careful perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the District Parole Advisory Committee dated 08.12.2025 reveals that the case of the convict-petitioner was considered on the basis of reports received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, the concerned Probation and Jail Welfare Officer, and the police authorities.”

It noted that “As per the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, the conduct of the petitioner during incarceration has been found to be satisfactory.”

With regard to the police reports, the Court stated that “the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, in his report, opined that the convict-petitioner and the complainant party belong to the same village and that there exists continuing animosity between the two sides since the occurrence.” It further recorded that “release of the petitioner on parole may lead to confrontation between the parties, resulting in breach of peace and disturbance of law and order.”

Upon consideration, the Court observed that “the apprehensions expressed in the police reports, though noted, are general in nature and predictive rather than fact-based.” It further stated that “The reports do not disclose any specific incident, overt act or concrete material indicating that the petitioner, if released on parole for a limited duration, is likely to misuse the liberty or disturb public order.”

The Court recorded that “The possibility of inter se tension between the parties or a perceived threat scenario, by itself, cannot be treated as a determinative factor for denial of parole, particularly when the conduct of the petitioner in jail has been reported to be satisfactory and no adverse material during incarceration has been brought to the notice of the Court.”

It also observed that “Maintenance of law and order and ensuring the safety of all concerned is a continuing obligation of the State, and such concerns can be adequately addressed by imposing suitable and reasonable conditions upon the petitioner during the period of parole.” The Court further stated that “Parole being an important instrument of reformation and social reintegration, denial thereof on the basis of speculative apprehensions would defeat the object underlying its grant.”

Also Read: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Newly Approved Nursing Colleges' Plea For Late Entry Into 2025–26 Counselling; NOC Obtained After Process Concludes Cannot Reopen Closed Admission Cycle

The Court ordered that “the instant writ petition, which is hereby allowed. The convict-petitioner shall be released on first parole of twenty days upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, on the usual terms and conditions.”

“The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose such other adequate and reasonable conditions as may be necessary to ensure the return of the petitioner to custody after availing the parole. The period of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Purushottam Saraswat, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA

Case Title: Govaram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: RJ-JD:6569
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 134/2026
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali