Back
No More Every Other Month: Rajasthan HC Turns to Legal Aid for Convict's Ailing Daughter
In a pragmatic ruling that underscores the limits of while extending a lifeline through state machinery, the dismissed a convict's fresh plea for temporary release. The of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma directed the to arrange treatment for the petitioner's daughter, who suffers from a psychiatric disorder, avoiding repeated jail breaks for family medical needs.
A Father's Desperate Plea from Behind Bars
Jagdish Gupta, a 60-year-old convict lodged in
, filed the
through his wife Sudha Gupta. Previously, on
, the same court had granted
but explicitly warned:
"the convict petitioner will have to make appropriate arrangements for treatment as well as care of his daughter, as the indulgence will not be granted time and again."
Now, citing no able family member to escort his daughter to AIIMS Jodhpur for ongoing psychiatric treatment, Jagdish sought
again. The respondents—
,
, and the jail superintendent—opposed, arguing the condition required regular care, not episodic releases.
Petitioner's Cry vs State's Firm No
Petitioner's counsel,
, emphasized the family's helplessness:
"there is no able member in the family of convict-petitioner to get the treatment of his daughter done at AIIMS, Jodhpur."
He urged the court to prioritize humanitarian grounds despite the prior directive.
On the flip side,
countered sharply:
"the ailment of the petitioner’s daughter will require regular treatment and, therefore, every time the petitioner cannot be granted
for that purpose."
The State highlighted the risk of
becoming routine, undermining incarceration.
Court's Clever Pivot: Legal Aid to the Rescue
Delving into the record, the bench acknowledged the daughter's psychiatric issues and lack of male family support for her AIIMS visits. Yet, it firmly rejected perpetual paroles:
"the convict-petitioner cannot be allowed to file
every second month or at a regular interval."
No prior precedents were cited, but the ruling hinges on balancing convict rights with systemic efficiency. Instead of release, the court innovated:
"the convict petitioner is directed to take the services of District Legal Service Authority at Sirohi. The District Legal Service Authority, Sirohi is directed to make suitable arrangement for treatment of the petitioner’s daughter at Sirohi or at appropriate centre."
It added that
or
would assist if requested, ensuring coordinated care without jail doors swinging open repeatedly.
This echoes reports from legal circles, where the bench observed the need for sustainable solutions over ad-hoc paroles.
Key Observations from the Bench
"It is a fact that the petitioner’s daughter is suffering from psychiatric disorder and is being extended the treatment at AIIMS, Jodhpur. For the purpose, there is no male member in the family, who can take care of the treatment of the petitioner’s daughter."
"At the same time, the convict-petitioner cannot be allowed to fileevery second month or at a regular interval."
"Needless to say that if theor District Legal Service Authority, Jodhpur at Jodhpur are requested by the District Legal Services Authority, Sirohi, the requisite help will be provided by them."
Plea Dismissed, But Care Ensured – What Next?
The stands disposed on , with clear orders for DLSA intervention. Practically, this shifts responsibility to legal aid bodies, potentially arranging local or specialized treatment sans convict involvement. For future cases, it signals courts may favor institutional support over personal paroles for chronic family ailments, curbing abuse while upholding welfare. A win for structured justice in Rajasthan's criminal landscape.
