Previous abscondence during parole does not constitute an absolute or perpetual bar to future parole grants, as the primary objective of parole is the reformative reintegration of the prisoner into society, provided their current conduct is satisfactory and there is no imminent threat to public order.

Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-convict seeking grant of regular parole for a period of seven days under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 and assailing the decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee whereby his application for parole came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner stands convicted in Sessions Case No.65/2016 by judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 363 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 5(f)/ 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and has been sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine. The criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence, being S.B. Criminal Appeal No.184/2018, is stated to be pending consideration before this Court.

3. The record placed before the Court indicates that the petitioner has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence. As per the nominal roll placed on record, the petitioner has undergone more than seven years of custody including remission.

4. The petitioner had earlier been released on parole on two occasions. The first parole was granted for twenty days from 04.02.2019 to 23.02.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was again released on second parole for thirty days from 24.07.2020 to 22.08.2020. It is not in dispute that during the second parole, the petitioner did not surrender within the stipulated time and remained absconding for a certain period whereafter he was apprehended and readmitted to custody.

5. The District Parole Advisory Committee considered the petitioner’s request for grant of regular parole in its meeting held on 07.08.2025 and upon deliberation rejected the application. The decision of the Committee was subsequently recorded in the minutes/order dated 08.08.2025.

6. The principal reasons assigned for rejection were the petitioner’s earlier abscondence while on parole and the apprehension expressed in the police report that the petitioner and the prosecutrix belong to the same village and therefore the possibility of an unpleasant incident cannot be ruled out.

7. Having considered the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that although the earlier conduct of the petitioner in not surrendering within time after availing parole is certainly a relevant factor, the same cannot operate as an absolute and perpetual bar for consideration of parole once the prisoner has been apprehended and continues to undergo the sentence.

8. The object of grant of parole is not merely to provide temporary release but also to enable a prisoner to maintain social ties and to facilitate his gradual reintegration into society. Once the petitioner has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence and his conduct in jail is reported to be satisfactory, denial of even a short period of parole would defeat the reformative purpose underlying the parole rules.

9. The Court also notices that though the police report expressed apprehension regarding possible tension between the parties, the report of the Social Welfare Officer does not indicate that the release of the petitioner would create any serious law and order problem. Thus, the material placed before the Court does not reveal any definite or imminent threat to public order.

10. The issue relating to grant of parole to a prisoner who had earlier ab