1. Petitioner, a life convict, sought waiver of surety condition for fourth parole due to indigence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 728
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, Farjand Ali, JJ.
Khartaram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3130 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: By Post
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
For the Petitioner: By Post
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Insisting on surety bonds for indigent prisoners is constitutionally impermissible and violates Articles 14 and 21. Parole, as a reformative tool, must not be rendered illusory due to financial incapacity; authorities must exercise discretion to waive sureties for the poor to ensure equal access to rehabilitation.
Headnote:(A) Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 - Rules 4, 6, 8, 10, 14 and 15 - Prison Act, 1894 - Section 59 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Release on parole - Condition of furnishing sureties for an indigent prisoner - Parole as a reformative and humanitarian measure intended to preserve familial ties and aid reintegration (Para 8) - Conditions must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and tailored to the circumstances of the convict (Para 9) - Insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner who is unable to fulfill the condition renders the concession of parole illusory and defeats its statutory purpose (Para 9) - Furnishing surety is a means to secure surrender, not an end in itself; where indigence is established, such insistence becomes an instrument of oppression and a constructive denial of parole (Para 11) - Economic incapacity cannot be a constitutionally valid basis for hostile discrimination (Para 15).
(B) Discretion of Parole Committee - Power to impose conditions under Rule 4 is directory, not mandatory or punitive - Discretion must be exercised positively to facilitate release rather than erecting exclusionary barriers (Para 10).
(C) Guidelines for Parole Sanction - Bond amount should be commensurate with economic status - Discretion should be exercised to waive surety for indigents upon inquiry - Subsequent paroles should automatically dispense with surety if previously waived, unless the prisoner's financial capacity has improved (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
A convict sentenced to life imprisonment applied for a fourth periodical regular parole. While the application was allowed by the competent authority, the release was subject to the condition of furnishing two sureties of a specified amount along with a personal bond. The convict, being indigent, had previously approached the court on three separate occasions to have the surety condition waived, and the court had granted such waivers each time. Despite this, the authority mechanically re-imposed the identical condition for the fourth parole.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the mechanical re-imposition of surety conditions on an indigent person, despite prior judicial waivers, reflects institutional apathy and violates the constitutional mandates of equality and dignity. It held that parole cannot be a privilege reserved for the solvent and that financial incapacity must not operate as a disqualifier for a sanctioned benefit.
Issues: Whether the imposition of surety conditions on an indigent prisoner, particularly when such conditions were previously waived by the court, is reasonable, legally sustainable, and constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that parole is a rehabilitative tool. Since the furnishing of surety is merely a mechanism to secure the prisoner's surrender and not the ultimate objective, insisting upon it for a prisoner of proven financial incapacity amounts to an arbitrary denial of parole. Such an approach violates the guarantee of equality before the law and the right to dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Result: Writ petition allowed; release directed on a personal bond alone, waiving the surety condition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
- prison law
Table of Contents
2. State opposed waiver of surety bonds for parole, citing petitioner's inability to furnish sureties. (Para 4 )
3. Mechanical re-imposition of surety condition despite past waivers frustrates parole's rehabilitative purpose and violates constitutional mandates. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 15 , 19 , 20 )
4. Indigent prisoner's inability to furnish sureties cannot defeat purpose of parole; personal bond suffices. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Writ allowed; petitioner directed to be released on parole upon furnishing personal bond, waiving surety condition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. Can a parole committee impose a condition of surety bonds on an indigent prisoner?
The committee has discretion but must not impose conditions that frustrate the purpose of parole, especially when the prisoner's indigence is established. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. What is the constitutional obligation of a parole authority regarding an indigent prisoner?
The authority must exercise discretion humanely and rationally, ensuring the prisoner's indigence does not become a disqualifier for parole, in line with Articles 14 and 21. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 )
8. Does a prior judicial waiver of surety condition bind the parole committee?
Yes, unless the committee records reasons showing the prisoner's financial capacity has improved, it must dispense with surety bonds on subsequent occasions. (Para 2 , 12 , 16 , 22 )
9. What guidelines must parole committees follow for indigent prisoners?
Committees must assess the prisoner's economic status, avoid exorbitant bonds, and dispense with surety if indigence is proven, especially after a prior waiver. (Para 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Arun Monga, J
1. An undated letter addressed to this court, sent by post by a convict, lodged in jail undergoing life imprisonment, has been converted into the instant writ petition. It reveals a persistent and deeply troubling pattern i.e. for the fourth time, the convict- prisoner has been compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for no reason other than his poverty and inability to furnish surety and the persistent mechanical approach of the competent authority by imposing an onerous condition of furnishing of sureties for actual release on duly sanctioned parole. On three earlier occasions, the petitioner was similarly forced to approach this Court solely because the authority insisted upon the furnishing of sureties, in addition to a personal bond, as a precondition for release on parole. The said insistence was categorically rejected and waived by this Court each time.
2. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s financial incapacity, and repeated, unequivocal and favorable judicial indulgence by waiver of the condition of furnishing sureties in past, the competent authority while sanctioning parole has, yet again, with complete nonchalance, imposed the very same condition for the fourth parole, directing the petitioner to furnish two sureties of Rs.25,000 each. What is particularly disturbing is the mechanical re- imposition of an identical condition for the fourth time, despite it’s earlier waiver, not once but thrice by this Court. Regrettably, it reflects a disturbing institutional apathy to the rule of law. More of it, later.
3. Succinct facts first.
3.1. Khartaram (petitioner herein) is undergoing sentence in Central Jail Jodhpur. He has been convicted for the offences under section 302/34 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment vide sessions court judgment dated 15.11.2014. As on 30.10.2025, the petitioner has undergone sentence as below:-
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Year | Months | Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Trial Period | 00 | 07 | 27 |
| 2. | Original sentence served | 10 | 11 | 15 |
| 3. | Total | 11 | 07 | 12 |
| 4. | Jail Remission | 02 | 05 | 04 |
| 5. | State Remission | 00 | 06 | 00 |
| 6. | Total | 14 | 06 | 16 |
3.2. Pertinently, the petitioner earlier availed first parole of 20 days from 22.01.2019 to 10.02.2019 on furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- in compliance to the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.06/2019 waiving the imposition of the condition of furnishing surety bond. Likewise, the prisoner also availed 30 days of second parole from 01.06.2020 to 30.06.2020 on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- upon waiver of precondition of furnishing surety bond in compliance to the order dated 28.05.2020 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.151/2020 . He also availed 40 days of third parole from 22.08.2022 to 30.09.2022 on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- following waiver of precondition of furnishing surety bond in compliance to the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Petition No.276/2022 .
3.3 Thus, it is the fourth foray of the petitioner/prisoner before this Court seeking the same relief i.e. waiver of the precondition of furnishing surety bonds as a precondition of seeking parole. The bare facts are a telling tale showing that the petitioner is an indigent person. On previous two occasions he sent letters to this Court seeking the waiver of the similar condition. Those letters were converted into writ petitions and the relief was granted. Third time though he filed a writ petition through counsel seeking the same relief which too was allowed. Unable to afford a counsel, this time again he has once again sent a letter seeking the waiver of precondition of furnishing surety bond.
3.4. Before approaching this Court, the prisoner submitted an application seeking grant of fourth periodical regular parole for a period of 40 days. The said application was forwarded to the learned District Magistrate, Pali, vide letter dated 26.08.2025. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali, convened a meeting on 26.09.2025 and upon consideration
