[2026:RJ-JD:210-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2849/2025 Subhash S/o Late Shri Dolatram, Aged About 50 Years, (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner) Through His Mother Smt. Sajana Devi W/o Late Shri Dolatram Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No 04 P.S. Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Depart.

Jaipur.

2. The Director General (Jail), Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar.

4. The Superintendent, Central Jail Bikaner.

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

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat.

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

Order

06/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal parole writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-convict being aggrieved of the order dated 06.05.2025 whereby, the Home Department of the State of Rajasthan while relying on the recommendations of the State Level Parole Committee has refused to release the petitioner on permanent parole.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing incarceration in pursuance of the judgment dated

22.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.19/2006 and the order dated 27.03.2009 passed by this Court in D.B. Murder Reference No.01/2009. He further submits that the convict-petitioner is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and he has completed a period of more than 18 years and 2 months of incarceration and has preferred an application for grant of permanent parole. He also submits that the convict-petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions for release on parole as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1958). He further submits that the convict- petitioner does not incur any ineligibility as per Rule 14 (c) of the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, the State Level Committee committed an error while rejecting the application for release on permanent parole despite the convict-petitioner having actually undergone custody of more than 14 years and 9 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the conduct of the convict-petitioner in Jail in last 05 years is reported to be good. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that in these circumstances, the application seeking release of convict-petitioner on permanent parole may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the convict-petitioner’s conduct has been taken note of by the State Level Parole Committee and it was found that the convict-petitioner has not reported to the jail authorities after completion of the parole period while he was released on second parole.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that a number of cases are pending against the convict-petitioner and he is a habitual offender, therefore, the State Level Parole Committee has rightly rejected the application preferred by the convict- petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed.

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

7. It is undisputed fact that the convict-petitioner has undergone incarceration of more than 18 years, out of which, 14 years and 9 months is the actual period of incarceration. It is true that a number of cases has been registered against the convict- petitioner, but fact of the matter remains that the conduct of the convict-petitioner in last 5 years in jail is reported to be satisfactory. Further, the convict-petitioner has undergone a period of more than 18 years in jail and, therefore, we are of the view that as per the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Rules of 1958, the case of the