Order

1. The present criminal writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner–convict Pratapram S/o Shri Sada Ram, resident of Village Mogrwal, Police Station Nana, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan).

2. The petitioner was tried in Sessions Case No. 10/2015 (08/2015) and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, vide judgment dated 01.07.2017, whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The petitioner is presently undergoing the said sentence and is confined in Open Air Camp, Sirohi, District Sirohi. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.07.2017, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before this Court being D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1073/2017, which is presently pending adjudication and awaits final consideration.

2.2. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier availed regular parole for a period of 40 days and thereafter completed more than eleven months of incarceration subsequent to the said parole period. In terms of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 2021, such completion of the intervening period rendered the petitioner eligible for consideration of regular parole for 40 days. Thus, the petitioner submitted an application before the competent authority seeking the said benefit.

2.3. The petitioner’s case was thereafter placed before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali which examined the matter in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. Upon consideration, the competent authority, namely the District Magistrate, Pali, vide order dated 17.01.2026, approved the grant of parole. However, the said approval was made conditional upon the petitioner furnishing two sound and solvent surety bonds of ₹25,000/- each along with a personal bond of ₹50,000/-.

2.4. The petitioner submits that despite the sanction of parole, he has been unable to avail the benefit thereof due to his acute financial incapacity to furnish the requisite surety bonds. It is asserted that the petitioner belongs to a financially indigent background, and the economic circumstances of his family render it practically impossible for him to procure solvent sureties in the amounts stipulated in the order dated 17.01.2026.

2.5. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions for waiver or relaxation of the condition relating to furnishing surety bonds, and praying that he may be permitted to avail the benefit of parole upon furnishing a personal bond alone.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner’s entitlement to parole already stands recognised by the competent authority, and the sole impediment in the actual execution of the order arises from the onerous condition requiring production of solvent sureties. It is urged that the petitioner’s continued incarceration despite the sanction of parole is solely attributable to his inability to comply with a condition that is financially burdensome and practically insurmountable for a person of his modest means.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned AAG as well as perused the material available on record.

3.1. Upon consideration of the matter, it becomes evident that the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to parole have already been duly acknowledged by the competent authority. Consequently, the scope of adjudication in the present proceedings stands confined to the limited question as to whether the condition requiring furnishing of surety bonds deserves to be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

3.2. It is noteworthy that although the competent authority sanctioned the petitioner’s parole, the same has r