##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14847-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 965/2026

Mehar Singh S/o Late Shri Kartar Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 4/54,swarndeep Complex, Ratanada, P.s. Ratanada, Jodhpur Permanent Address Care Of Mrs. Sandeep Kaur W/o Ranjeet Singh Ji, House No. 222 Jalalabad East, District Moga, Punjab

(Lodged In Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The District Collector, Cum Magistrate, Jaipur

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

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ranjan 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 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions for relaxation/waiver of the condition of furnishing sureties imposed

while granting permanent parole to the petitioner.

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

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:34:12 PM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:17:53 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14847-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-965/2026] incarceration has remained satisfactory. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been shifted to Open Air Camp, Sanganer, Jaipur, which itself reflects his good conduct and

reformation.

3. It is contended that the State Government, upon consideration of the case of the petitioner, has already granted permanent parole in his favour vide order dated 30.12.2025 (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/-. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish such sureties as there is no one in his family capable of standing as surety, his parents having expired and no close

relative being available for the said purpose.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has been granted permanent parole, however submits that the condition imposed is

as per rules.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the competent authority has already found the petitioner entitled for grant of permanent parole and accordingly passed the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annex.1). Thus, the entitlement of the petitioner to be released on permanent

parole stands crystallized.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:34:12 PM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:17:53 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14847-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-965/2026] 7. The only impediment in the way of the petitioner is the condition requiring furnishing of two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each. The petitioner has specifically pleaded and demonstrated that he is unable to comply with such condition on account of absence of family support or persons who may stand

surety for him.

8. This Court is of the considered view that once the competent authority has found the petitioner entitled for permanent parole, any condition imposed ought to be reasonable and capable of compliance. A condition which is incapable of being fulfilled would render the substantive relief illusory and defeat the very purpose

of grant of parole.

9. Parole is a reformative measure intended to facilitate reintegration of the convict into society. The petitioner having already undergone substantial period of incarceration and having been found fit for permanent parole, denial of the benefit solely on account of inability to furnish sureties would be unjust and contrary to