##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14848-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 966/2026

Lakhjinder Singh Alias Lucky S/o Lt Shri Kartar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 4/54, Swarndeep Complex Ratanada, P.s. Ratanada, Jodhpur Permanant Address Care Of Mrs. Sandeep Kaur W/o Ranjeet Singhji House No. 222 Jalalabad East, District Moga, Punjab 142042 (Lodged In Open Air Camp,

Sanganer, Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The District Collector, Cum Magistrate, Jaipur

3. The Superintendent Of Central Jail, Jodhpur ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ranjana Singh Mertia Mr. Nityesh Soni

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

01/04/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief with regard to the condition imposed while granting permanent parole to the

petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and is undergoing life imprisonment. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 14 years and 10 months, exclusive of remission, and his conduct in jail has been

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:11 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:06:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14848-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-966/2026] satisfactory. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred to Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur, which itself

reflects his good conduct.

3. It is contended that the State Government, after due consideration, has already granted permanent parole to the petitioner vide order dated 02.12.2025 (Annex.1). However, while granting such benefit, a condition has been imposed requiring the petitioner to furnish two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each along with a

personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is unable to comply with the said condition as there is no one in his family to stand surety. It is submitted that the petitioner’s parents are no more and there is no person available who can furnish the sureties as required. Thus, the condition imposed renders the order of

permanent parole ineffective in practical terms.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the condition has been imposed in accordance with the applicable

rules.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the competent authority has already found the petitioner entitled for grant of permanent parole and has accordingly passed the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annex.1). Thus, the entitlement of the petitioner to be released on

permanent parole is not in question.

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:11 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:06:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14848-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-966/2026] 8. The only issue which arises for consideration is with regard to the condition requiring furnishing of two sureties of Rs.50,000/-

each.

9. This Court is of the considered view that while imposing conditions for release on parole, the authority is required to ensure that such conditions are reasonable and capable of compliance. A condition which is incapable of being fulfilled would defeat the very purpose of granting parole and would render the

relief illusory.

10. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that he has no family member or person available to stand surety and is, therefore, unable to comply with the condition imposed.

The said aspect has not been controverted.

11. Parole being a reformative measure, once the competent authority has found the petitioner fit for permanent parole, the benefit cannot be denied on account of an onerous condition which

the petitioner is unable to fulfill.

12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds it just and proper to