A convict's application for parole should not be rejected if their conduct is satisfactory and they have previously complied with parole conditions, as such rejection is not sustainable.

Order

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for grant of second parole of 30 days.

3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence under Sections 302 & 323/34 IPC vide judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. He is undergoing sentence for life imprisonment. The petitioner’s case was considered by the District Parole Committee in its meeting held on 25.07.2025. However, the same was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. It is stated that the petitioner was granted first parole of 30 days and during his first parole, no overtact has been reported and the petitioner, after completion of the first parole period, has surrendered to the Jail Authorities on time. The conduct of the petitioner inside and outside of jail is also satisfactory. It is further stated that the petitioner is fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for availing second parole as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘Rules of 1958’). It is therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted second parole of 30 days.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, though has opposed the submissions, however, is not in a position to refute the fact that the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory inside and outside the jail and the petitioner is eligible for releasing him on second parole as per the Rules of 1958.

6. We have considered the submissions made before us and have carefully gone through the relevant record of the case.

7. The rejection of petitioner’s case by the District Parole Committee in its meeting held on 25.07.2025, does not appear to be justified and sustainable. More particularly, when conduct of the petitioner inside the jail is found to be satisfactory and while on his first parole of 30 days, no untoward incident has been reported and the petitioner has surrendered to the jail authorities after completion of period of his first parole. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner merits acceptance.

8. The present writ petition is therefore, allowed. The convict-petitioner Subhash S/o Nihal Singh shall be released on parole for a period of 30 days provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail Hanumangarh on usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail Hanumangarh shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict-petitioner to the custody after availing the parole.