[2026:RJ-JD:12024-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 772/2026 Nanuram Alias Bapu S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Borundi Ps Badi Sadadi District Chittorgarh At Present Village Bharev Lasadiya District Salumber (At Present Lodged At Open Air Prison Camp Bichhwal Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Department Through Joint Administrative Secretary Come Additional Chief Vigilance Commissioner Secretariat Jaipur Rajasthan

2. District Collector, Chittorgarh

3. District Collector, Salumber

4. Superintendent Central Jail, Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Heli Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

13/03/2026

1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner with the grievance that though the convict–petitioner, Nanuram @ Bapu S/ o Shri Narayan Singh, has been granted the benefit of permanent parole by the State Level Parole Committee vide its recommendations recorded in the meeting held on 16.07.2025 and the order dated 08.08.2025, the said benefit has been made subject to the condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the like amount.

1.1 The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has approached this Court seeking waiver/relaxation of the aforesaid condition relating to furnishing of surety bonds and has prayed that he may be ordered to be released on permanent parole upon furnishing a personal bond alone, as the requirement of producing sureties is stated to be causing practical difficulty in securing his release.

2. 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. The entitlement of the petitioner to permanent parole already stands recognised by the State Level Parole Committee. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the condition requiring furnishing of two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each deserves to be quashed in the peculiar facts of the case.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has asserted his inability to furnish sureties owing to financial hardship. He further submits that the petitioner’s family circumstances are modest and the fact that the petitioner is an indigent person 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 position to arrange the required sureties.

7. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the prayer of the convict-petitioner that he may be released on permanent parole on personal bond only is accepted as well as on humanitarian consideration and in order to give an opportunity to the convict-petitioner for reforming himself, to facilitate his reintegration into the society and the fact that he is an indigent person, the requirement of furnishing two sureties as imposed in the recommendations recorded in the meeting of the State Level Parole Committee held on 16.07.2025 is relaxed and it is directed that the petitioner Nanur