[2025:RJ-JD:53523-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3233/2025

Asharam S/o Shri Nand Lal Ji, Aged About 27 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer Through His Sister Smt Maina Regar W/o Shri Ramdayal Ji D/o Nand Lal Ji R/o Village Rased Ps Kotdi

District Bhilwara

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Det. Of Home, Rajasthan. Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Bhilwara

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Ajmer

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner– convict, Asharam, challenging the adverse recommendations dated 17.04.2025 issued by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Bhilwara, whereby his application for grant of first

parole for 20 days was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a statutory right to be considered for first parole, and the reasons assigned by the Committee are irrelevant. He argues that no authority has made any adverse remark regarding the petitioner’s conduct in custody. The rejection is based solely on the apprehension that, since both the petitioner and the victim

belong to the same village, his release may endanger his own safety due to existing enmity, and may also lead to unrest in the community. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in Sahi Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 148/2024, decided on 28.02.2024), wherein, in similar circumstances, parole was granted on the condition that the convict would stay at a location away from the victim’s residence and would not visit the victim.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the grant of parole, contending that the petitioner stands convicted under the POCSO Act for a grave offence of sexual assault on a minor, and hence should not be released on parole. It is argued that releasing the petitioner would adversely affect the social and psychological well-being of the victim, whose residence is near that of the petitioner.

4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to spend the parole period at his sister-in- law’s residence, which is situated at a distance from the victim’s house.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Upon examination of the material, we find that the rejection of the petitioner’s first parole is based on vague and non-specific apprehensions. The adverse reports refer only to “mutual enmity,” a “possibility of breach of peace,” and “public resentment,” without citing any concrete incident, recent complaint, or material demonstrating a real and credible likelihood of disturbance. Such generalised observations, unsupported by objective facts, cannot constitute valid grounds to deny first parole, particularly when the authority has failed to show independent application of mind and appears to have mechanically relied on the police and departmental opinions.

7. The nominal roll reflects that, as of 10.11.2025, the petitioner has undergone 9 years, 3 months, and 22 days of actual imprisonment, and his conduct in custody has been reported as GOOD. No adverse material has been recorded against him.

8. The petitioner has also expressed willingness to reside at his sister-in-law’s house, which is sufficiently distant from the victim’s residence, thereby addressing concerns of proximity or potential confrontation.

9. In the premise, we are satisfied that the statutory purpose of first parole i.e. controlled social reintegration, cannot be defeated by speculative or stereotyped apprehensions. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be released on first parole for a period of 20 days, subject to appropriate safeguards.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the petition