[2025:RJ-JD:53297-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3249/2025 Harpal Singh S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 33 Years, At Present Lodged In Open Air Camp Pali Through His Mother Smt Saroj Kanwar W/o Omprakash Aged About 51 R/o 2Nd Face Pahadganj Near Shiv Mandir Ps Mandor District Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus

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

Jaipur

2. The Director Genral Jail, Jaipur

3. The District Collector, Jodhpur

4. The Dy. Superintedent, District Jail Pali ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/12/2025

1. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2025 (Annex.1) passed by the Joint Secretary of Government of Rajasthan whereby his application for permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules was rejected on 09.10.2025 solely on the ground that owing to his concurrent conviction under Section 397 IPC, he is ineligible for the same.

2. The petitioner has been in custody for over 14 years pursuant to his conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 397 vide judgment dated 02.11.2012 in Sessions Case No.

17/2011. With remissions, he has completed more than 19 years of sentence. He has been granted parole on four earlier occasions, all availed without any adverse incident. He is presently lodged in the Open Air Camp.

3. Having thus spent more than 14 years (and 19 years with remission) his request for permanent parole was declined by the competent authority citing Rule 14 (d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as “The Rules”). Impugned order is passed on the premise that Rule ‘d’ of the Rules of 1958 envisages that the persons convicted for the offences mentioned therein shall not be ordinarily granted parole. 4. For ready reference Rule 14 of the Rules ibid is produced hereinbelow:-

“14. Ineligibility for release. - The following classes of prisoners will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole:-

(a) persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial or a Court of another State;

(b) Persons convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;

(c) Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police custody or attempted to escape;

(d) Persons who have been convicted for offences under sections 121 to 140,216A, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332, 364, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395,396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

unless they have undergone [one-fourth] of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentenced u/s. 302 I.P.C. the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole.”

The bare perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that the classes of prisoners categorized therein are not to be released on parole “ordinarily” and thus it is not in absolute bar in considering their eligibility.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the expression “ordinarily not eligible” in Rule 14(d) does not create an absolute bar. He would urge that prolonged incarceration, unblemished conduct of the petitioner and his successful paroles in past constitute exceptional circumstances warranting consideration. Hence, the impugned order rejecting permanent parole is not sustainable.

6. We find ourselves in agreement with the stand taken by learned Court for parole. In fact, the meaning and import of the word “ordinarily” was subject matter of interpretation before this Court in