##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1264/2026

Mukesh Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar, S/o Parvatraj R/o Panghat Road Barmer, Presently House No. 9/798 Choupasani Housing Board Ps Devnagar, Dist. Jodhpur, Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail

Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Collector, Barmer

3. Supdt, Central Jail, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : By post 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 instant criminal writ petition has been instituted upon a letter petition sent by the convict prisoner from jail through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur and has been registered as a

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. His case for grant of permanent parole was considered by the State Level Parole Committee and vide order dated 30.12.2025 (Annex.1), he has been granted permanent parole subject to the condition of furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

each along with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:07:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1264/2026] 3. The present petition has been preferred seeking relaxation/modification of the aforesaid condition on the ground that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the required sureties. From the contents of the letter addressed by the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner belongs to a financially weak background and has expressed his inability to arrange sureties of the amount stipulated in the order. He has specifically prayed that he may be released on permanent parole on personal

bond.

4. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that the competent authority has already found the petitioner entitled for grant of permanent parole. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioner to be released on permanent

parole is not under challenge.

6. The only issue which arises for consideration is with regard to the condition requiring furnishing of two sureties of Rs.50,000/-

each.

7. Permanent parole, as contemplated under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, is a reformative measure intended to facilitate the social reintegration of a convict who has demonstrated satisfactory conduct and has undergone substantial period of incarceration. The object of granting such benefit is not merely conditional release, but meaningful reintegration into society while maintaining a balance between individual liberty and

societal interest.

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:07:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1264/2026] 8. At the same time, the conditions imposed while granting parole are required to ensure that the convict adheres to lawful conduct and remains available to the authorities. However, such conditions must be reasonable and capable of compliance. A condition which is excessively onerous or incapable of being fulfilled by the convict, particularly in view of his socio-economic background, may render the grant of parole ineffective in practice. 9. In the present case, the petitioner, through his letter, has specifically brought on record his financial incapacity and lack of means to furnish two sureties of the amount stipulated. The said aspect assumes significance, particularly when the State itself, upon consideration of relevant factors, has found the petitioner

suitable for permanent parole.

10. Thus, while the condition of sureties cannot be dispensed with entirely, as it serves as a safeguard to secure the presence and conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the condition deserves to be suitably moderated so as to balance the objective of parole with the practical abi