Parole is a concession for good behavior, not a right, and must be granted with consideration of rehabilitation, irrespective of family objections, unless supported by independent evaluation.

ORDER :

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.

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 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 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 o