[2025:RJ-JD:35170]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 370/2025 Sanwar Lal S/o Shri Bheru Lal, Aged About 32 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Ajemr Through His Cousin Brother Shri Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Daya Ram Aged About 25, R/o Village Asind, P.s. Asind, Dist. Bhilwara ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Department, Jaipur

2. The Dist. Collector, Bhilwara

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

07/08/2025

1. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Level Parole Committee, Bhilwara has committed an error of law in rejecting petitioner’s application for first parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein referred to “the rules of 1958).

2. While highlighting that it is petitioner’s statutory right to get first parole, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasons given by the learned District Level Parole Committee, Bhilwara are not relevant, particularly when none of the authorities, including the Deputy Director of Social Justice Empowerment Department and jail authorities has given unfavourable remarks about petitioner’s conduct.

3. Mr. H.S. Jodha, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed grant of parole by contending that petitioner is serving sentence pursuant to his conviction under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to ‘POCSO Act’) and since he has committed grave offence of sexual assault minor girl of his village, he be not released on parole. It was argued that releasing the convict- petitioner on parole would have negative bearing on social and psychological well-being of the victim, whose residence is just adjacent to convict-petitioner’s house.

4. Mr. Bhati at this juncture submitted that the convict- petitioner would spend his time of parole at a distant place from the village in which the victim and her family live.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The Court is mindful of the legislative intent of the POCSO Act which provides that the contact between the accused and the victim should be prevented in order to minimise the trauma experienced by the child. According to this Court, if the victim is faced with the presence of convict-petitioner, it would have an adverse impact on her mental well-being and he/she would be forced to re-visit the trauma and be reminded of the incident which she would be trying hard to forget.

7. But then, a balance has to be struck between the safety and emotional aspect of the victim and statutory rights of the accused. This Court is of the opinion that such balance would be achieved if the accused spends his time of parole at a place which is away from victim’s residence. Such order would take care of the apprehension/anxiety expressed by learned AAG.

8. The instant parole writ petition is allowed and petitioner’s prayer for first parole is allowed.

9. The impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned District Level Parole Committee, Bhilwara is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. It is ordered that the convict petitioner - Sanwar Lal S/o Shri Bheru Lal shall be released on first parole of 20 days upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of Superintendent Central, Jail, Ajmer on the usual terms and conditions.

11. It is hereby also ordered that the convict-petitioner shall spend his period of parole at a distant place and he shall not visit the village where the victim resides.

12. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of hi