Parole cannot be denied to a convict who is eligible under applicable rules and has satisfactory jail conduct solely based on an unsubstantiated apprehension of threat to the complainant.

Order

05/02/2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present (parole) writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the convict-petitioner for grant of first parole of 20 days.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is facing incarceration in pursuance of the judgment dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Udaipur. The petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur and he has completed incarceration of more than 11 years. She submits that even the application for suspension of sentence has been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. However, the petitioner was unable to furnish two sureties therefore, he could not be released even after passing of the order by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the petitioner, in jail, is satisfactory and the petitioner is meeting the eligibility criteria as per the Rajasthan Prisoner’s Release on Parole Rules, 1958 and therefore, he is entitled for grant of first parole. She, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be released on first parole of 20 days.

Learned AAG has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that report of the social welfare department is against the petitioner and it has also been stated that there is imminent threat to the family of the complainant if the petitioner is released on first parole. However, the learned AAG very fairly submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory and the petitioner has completed incarceration of 14 years and 11 months including remission and he is entitled for release on first parole as per the rules of 1958.

We have considered the submissions made before us and have gone through the relevant record. The fact that the petitioner is entitled for release on first parole as per the rules of 1958 and the jail record of the petitioner is found satisfactory, then he cannot be denied the benefit of releasing on first parole, only if it is anticipated that the complainant party is under the apprehension of threat.

In the considered opinion of this Court there is no foundation for the same and merely because the petitioner is convicted for an offence under the POCSO Act, it cannot be deemed that the complainant party will be under apprehension of threat from the petitioner if he is released on first parole of 20 days.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner merits acceptance and, therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on first parole of 20 days on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each (one of which shall be furnished by petitioner’s close relative) to the satisfaction of concerned Jail Authority. The concerned Jail Authority shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the prison after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.