SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 7925

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI, SANDEEP SHAH
KAPIL DUGGAL ALIAS AJAY DUGGAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLW / 705 / 2026



[2026:RJ-JD:12289-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 705/2026 Kapil Duggal Alias Ajay Duggal S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 05 Hanuman Colony,near Nehru College, Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar. (Presently Confined In Open Air Camp, Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home (Group-12)

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Director General Jail, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. District Collector And District Magistrate, Bikaner,rajasthan.

4. The Superintendent, Central Jail- Bikaner.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaidev Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. K.S. Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

12/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions for modification of the in the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Dy. Secretary, Home Deptt. wherein conditions imposed while granting him permanent parole, particularly the requirement of furnishing two surety bonds of ₹50,000/- each.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition reveals that the petitioner is presently undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 458 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with FIR No.195/2011 registered at Police Station Hamirwas. The conviction and sentence were recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No. 46/2011. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and during his confinement in the Central Jail, Bikaner, his conduct and behaviour have remained peaceful, disciplined and free from any complaint.

2.1. It further transpires from the record that the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Level Parole Committee in its meeting held on 02.12.2025. Upon consideration of the recommendations made by the said committee, the State Government took a decision to release eleven prisoners, including the present petitioner, on permanent parole subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Consequently, vide order dated 06.01.2026, the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan issued directions for releasing the petitioner on permanent parole on the condition that he furnishes two surety bonds of ₹50,000/- each along with a personal bond of ₹50,000/-. 2.2. The grievance raised in the present petition is that despite the order granting permanent parole, the petitioner has been unable to avail the benefit thereof on account of his inability to comply with the condition of furnishing two solvent sureties of ₹50,000/- each. Hence the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to an economically deprived tribal background and does not possess sufficient financial resources to arrange two solvent sureties in the amount stipulated in the order dated 06.01.2026. As a consequence, though the competent authority has already granted him permanent parole, the petitioner continues to remain in custody solely due to his financial incapacity.

3.1. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is willing and ready to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000/- and is also capable of arranging one surety bond of ₹25,000/-, but arranging two sureties of ₹50,000/- each is beyond his means. Learned counsel therefore prays that the said condition may suitably be relaxed so that the petitioner may effectively avail the benefit of permanent parole already granted to him.

4. We have heard considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

4.1. It is noteworthy that the competent authority, after due deliberation and upon the recommendation of the State Level Parole Committee, has already found the petitioner su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top