[2026:RJ-JD:3642-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3667/2025 Lala @ Lalshankar @ Jigar S/o Shri Gattu Lal, Aged About 30 Years, At present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur, through his father Shri Gattu Lal S/o Shri Somaji, Age About 55 Years, R/o Village Petfala Dadiya, P. S. Dambola, District Dungarpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Department of Home Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General (Jails), Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Dungarpur.

4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati.

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

21/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-convict for releasing him on permanent parole.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting held on 09.09.2025 has wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing him on permanent parole. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life in pursuance of the judgment dated 24.04.2015 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur. He also submits that earlier the petitioner has availed the benefit of releasing him on parole on six occasions and on all the six occasions, he has surrendered back to the jail authorities on time. He further submits that during the parole period, he was not involved in any kind of offence and his conduct in jail during his incarceration was also satisfactory.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is fulfilling all the requisite criteria for releasing him on permanent parole as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein after referred to ‘the Rules of 1958’) more particularly, proviso to Rule 9, which puts an embargo on consideration of an application for grant of permanent parole before completion of 14 years only in cases where the offence, for which an applicant has been convicted with a punishment of death penalty. He further submits that in the present case, the petitioner has been sentenced of imprisonment for life and he has completed incarceration for almost 12 years and, therefore, his application for release on permanent parole has wrongly been rejected by the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 09.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1828/2023 (Heeralal V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be released on permanent parole.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-

convict and submits that the decision taken by the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting dated 09.09.2025 is just, proper and correct.

6. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for remainder of life and he has not been awarded death penalty. The conduct of the petitioner while on parole and during incarceration in Jail is reported satisfactory. The proviso to Rule 9 very clearly puts an embargo for not releasing a person on permanent parole if he has been awarded death penalty and unless a person has served 14 years of imprisonment. Since the case of the petitioner falls within the eligibility criteria of the Rules of 1958, therefore, we are of the view that the State Level Parole Committee has committed an error while rejecting the application for permanent parole of the petitioner.

8. The grounds o