Order

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner–convict seeking relaxation of the conditions imposed in connection with grant of second regular parole. The grievance of the petitioner is confined to the condition requiring furnishing of sureties for availing the benefit of parole.

2. The record indicates that the petitioner–convict stands convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.127/2015 (974/14) for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 326 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.65,000/-, with further sentence in default of payment of fine.

3. It is borne out from the material placed on record that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali, and in its meeting held on 26.06.2025 the Committee resolved to grant the petitioner second regular parole for a period of 30 days. The said parole was, however, made subject to the condition that the petitioner would furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each along with solvency certificate.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court through a representation submitted from jail stating that he belongs to a modest background and does not possess the financial capacity to arrange the required sureties. It is contended that despite the parole having been sanctioned by the competent authority, he has not been able to avail the same on account of financial hardship.

5. The State has filed its reply and has also placed on record the report received from the SHO, Police Station Sadar, District Pali. The said report reflects that the petitioner belongs to a family of ordinary means. It is mentioned that the petitioner’s mother is aged about 70 years and resides in the village. The report further indicates that the petitioner has two brothers, namely Chunilal and Pappuram. It has been noted that one of the brothers is presently lodged in open jail Mandore undergoing sentence, while the other is serving sentence in open jail Barmer. The report also records that the petitioner’s family does not appear to possess substantial financial resources and their economic condition is ordinary. No adverse apprehension regarding breach of peace or law and order has been indicated in the report.

6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has perused the material available on record.

7. The entitlement of the petitioner to second regular parole already stands recognised by the District Parole Advisory Committee. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the condition requiring furnishing of two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each deserves modification in the peculiar facts of the case.

8. It is significant to note that although the parole was sanctioned by the competent authority in July, 2025, the petitioner has not been able to avail the same till date. The prolonged non- availment of the parole itself indicates that the petitioner has not been in a position to comply with the condition relating to furnishing of sureties.

9. It is well settled that conditions imposed for release of a prisoner, whether in bail or parole matters, must be reasonable and capable of compliance. A condition which becomes impossible to satisfy for want of means would defeat the very purpose of granting relief and render the order ineffective in practice.

10. In the present case, the petitioner has asserted his inability to furnish sureties owing to financial hardship. The police report placed on record by the State also reflects that the petitioner’s family circumstances are modest. The fact that the petitioner’s brothers themselves are undergoing sentence and the family is left with limited means further supports the assertion regarding financial incapacity. Thus, the material on record lends credence to the petitioner’s claim that he is not in a po