Back
INDERJEET SINGH, BHUWAN GOYAL
Abre Rehmat Ansari S/o Noor Mohammed Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These Criminal Writ Petitions (Parole) have been filed by the accused-petitioners with the prayer for releasing them on regular paroles for a period of forty days:
| Case No. | Name of Accused-petitioner | Age | Custody Period | Regular Parole |
| D.B. Crl. W. No. 574/2024 | Abre Rehmat Ansari | 57 years | More than 26 years | 4th Parole |
| D.B. Crl. W. No. 739/2023 | Asfaq | 61 years | More than 30 years | 3rd Parole |
| D.B. Crl. W. No. 401/2024 | Mohammad Afaq | 55 years | More than 30 years | 4th Parole |
| D.B. Crl. W. No. 666/2024 | Fazlur Rehman Sufi @ Shamim | 65 years | More than 30 years | 4th Parole |
| D.B. Crl. W. No. 805/2024 | Dr. Jalees Ansari | 66 years | More than 30 years | 3rd Parole |
2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-petitioners that the accused-petitioners were earlier granted regular paroles either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Court. Counsel further submits that after availing all the paroles, they surrendered themselves before the concerned jail authorities within the stipulated time and have not misused the liberty of paroles e
The court ruled that parole is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted based on satisfactory conduct and compliance with established rules.
Parole is a privilege, not a right, and the State can impose restrictions on parole for serious offenses, including those under the TADA Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of enabling prisoners, particularly TADA convicts, to maintain family and social ties, and the criticism of mechanical rejection of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of parole applications must be based on due consideration of facts and law, and convicts should be allowed to maintain family an....
The court established that maintaining family ties is a significant ground for granting parole, even for life convicts, and criticized the outdated nature of existing parole rules.
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
The conviction for a serious or heinous crime by itself cannot operate as an absolute bar for denying parole to the prisoner who has otherwise acquired eligibility for release on parole.
Parole is not guaranteed for convicts with serious offenses; public safety and the nature of criminal history are crucial factors in denial of short-term bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
