1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing order declining second parole. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
Narayan Alias Ram Narayan S/o Shri Nainu Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 410 of 2026
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Important Points
Parole, as a reformative tool for social reintegration, cannot be denied solely because the convict and victim reside in the same village, absent concrete evidence of imminent threat. Such safety concerns should be managed through stringent conditions rather than the outright denial of parole.
Subject
Criminal Law - Prisoner Rights and Parole
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Parole - Reformative approach - Reintegration into society - Benefit of parole cannot be denied solely on the ground that the convict and the victim reside in the same village - Mere apprehension without concrete material is insufficient to deny parole (Paras 5, 5.1, 5.2) - Purpose of parole is to enable convicts to maintain social and familial ties; prohibiting visits to the native village would render the grant illusory as the home environment is central to the reformative process (Para 5.3).
(B) Reformative Theory of Punishment - The objective of the criminal justice system is to reform the individual while condemning the wrongdoing, ensuring that the opportunity for self-correction and restoration of dignity is not denied (Para 6.1).
(C) Victim's Rights - Concerns regarding the safety, dignity, and peace of mind of the victim are significant but can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions, such as prohibiting contact, communication, or approach, rather than by denying the benefit of parole (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
A criminal writ petition was filed challenging an order of the District Collector which declined the grant of a second parole for thirty days to a convict. The denial was based on the ground that the convict and the victim reside in the same village and in close proximity, which was perceived as a potential threat to the safety and security of the victim and her family.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the apprehension regarding the safety of the victim was based on conjecture rather than concrete material placed on record. It held that the purpose of parole is to permit the convict to return to his home environment to experience social responsibilities, and prohibiting such visits would defeat the reformative object of the law.
Issues: Whether the mere circumstance of the convict and the victim residing in the same village constitutes a valid ground to deny the grant of parole.
Ratio Decidendi: Parole is not an administrative indulgence but an integral facet of a reformative approach to penology intended for social reintegration. Denial of parole based on generalized apprehension of threat due to shared residency, without tangible evidence of an imminent risk, is unjustified. Security concerns for the victim can be balanced with the convict's reformative needs by imposing strict conditions on conduct and movement.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
(B) Reformative Theory of Punishment - The objective of the criminal justice system is to reform the individual while condemning the wrongdoing, ensuring that the opportunity for self-correction and restoration of dignity is not denied (Para 6.1).
(C) Victim's Rights - Concerns regarding the safety, dignity, and peace of mind of the victim are significant but can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions, such as prohibiting contact, communication, or approach, rather than by denying the benefit of parole (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
A criminal writ petition was filed challenging an order of the District Collector which declined the grant of a second parole for thirty days to a convict. The denial was based on the ground that the convict and the victim reside in the same village and in close proximity, which was perceived as a potential threat to the safety and security of the victim and her family.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the apprehension regarding the safety of the victim was based on conjecture rather than concrete material placed on record. It held that the purpose of parole is to permit the convict to return to his home environment to experience social responsibilities, and prohibiting such visits would defeat the reformative object of the law.
Issues: Whether the mere circumstance of the convict and the victim residing in the same village constitutes a valid ground to deny the grant of parole.
Ratio Decidendi: Parole is not an administrative indulgence but an integral facet of a reformative approach to penology intended for social reintegration. Denial of parole based on generalized apprehension of threat due to shared residency, without tangible evidence of an imminent risk, is unjustified. Security concerns for the victim can be balanced with the convict's reformative needs by imposing strict conditions on conduct and movement.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Kalu Ram Bhati, Kavita Sharma, Vakil Kumar
For the Respondent: Deepak Choudhary
For the Appellants : Kalu Ram Bhati, Kavita Sharma, Vakil Kumar
For the Respondent: Deepak Choudhary
Table of Contents
2. Parole rejected on mechanical grounds despite eligibility, versus safety concerns due to same village residence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Parole is a reformative measure; residence in same village alone cannot justify denial of parole. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. A convict cannot be denied parole solely on ground that he and victim reside in same village. (Para 5 )
5. Writ petition allowed; convict granted 30-day second parole with conditions ensuring victim safety. (Para 8 )
6. Can parole be denied solely because the convict and victim reside in the same village?
No. The mere circumstance that they belong to the same village cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to deny parole. (Para 5 )
7. How can victim safety concerns be addressed while granting parole to a convict from the same village?
By imposing stringent conditions prohibiting the convict from contacting or approaching the victim and requiring periodic police reporting. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the petitioner’s prayer seeking grant of second parole for a period of 30 days has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parole application of the petitioner has been rejected on mechanical and extraneous considerations, despite the fact that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria under the applicable rules and his conduct in jail has been reported to be satisfactory. It is further submitted that vague apprehensions expressed by the police authorities cannot constitute valid grounds for denial of parole.
3. Learned AAG submitted that since the victim and the convict reside in the same village and in close proximity to each other, the release of the convict on parole may pose a potential threat to the safety and security of the victim as well as her family members, and therefore, he ought not to be granted the benefit of parole.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG as well as perused the material available on record.
5. The apprehension expressed by the learned AAG that the victim and the convict reside in the same village and, therefore, the convict ought not to be released on parole, cannot be accepted in its absolute and inflexible terms. The mere circumstance that the victim and the convict belong to the same village, by itself, cannot constitute a valid ground to deny the benefit of parole. If such a proposition were to be accepted as a rule of universal application, the very purpose for which the concept of parole has been evolved in criminal jurisprudence would stand frustrated.
5.1 Parole is not conceived merely as an act of administrative indulgence; rather, it is an integral facet of the reformative approach that underlies modern penology. The object of parole is to enable a convict to maintain his social and familial ties and to facilitate his gradual reintegration into the mainstream of society. A prisoner, though deprived of his liberty for the commission of an offence, does not cease to be a member of society. The law does not contemplate his permanent social isolation. On the contrary, the philosophy of parole recognises that a convict must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to reconnect with the social environment so that he may reflect upon his past conduct and endeavour to reform himself.
5.2 The apprehension voiced by the prosecution proceeds on the assumption that the mere presence of the convict in the same village as the victim would necessarily endanger the latter. Such a submission, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be founded more upon conjecture than upon any concrete material placed on record. The criminal justice system cannot operate on bald and speculative presumptions. Unless there exists tangible material to indicate a real and imminent threat, the denial of parole on such a generalized apprehension would not be justified. Equally important is the practical dimension of the matter.
5.3 The very purpose of granting parole is to permit the convict to return to his home environment and experience the responsibilities and realities of social life. If a convict, during the period of parole, is not permitted to visit his home or reside within his native village, the obvious question that would arise is, where else would he go? The home of a person is naturally the place where his family resides and where his social roots lie. Directing a convict to reside at some unknown or unrelated place during parole would not only be impractical but would also render the grant of parole largely illusory. Parole is meant to provide the convict with an opportunity to step outside the prison walls, to interact with society and to feel the value of living as a responsible member of the community. Whe
