Back
Escape from Open Camp, But Parole Beckons After 17 Years
In a nuanced ruling balancing rehabilitation against past breaches, the has granted a first-time 20-day parole to Bhuriya alias Jagdish, a life convict serving time for murder and robbery. The Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma set aside the District Parole Advisory Committee's rejection, emphasizing flexibility in parole rules for long-serving prisoners.
The Long Shadow of a Conviction
Bhuriya was convicted in by the , under , earning a life sentence. Transferred through various facilities, including Central Jail, Ajmer, District Jail, Bhilwara, and now Central Jail, Dausa, he sought his inaugural 20-day parole after clocking over 17 years in custody, including remission.
His application hit a snag in when the denied it, citing his five-month absconding stint from an Open Air Camp between , and . Undeterred, Bhuriya approached the High Court via a .
Petitioner's Plea: Time Served Trumps Past Slip
argued that Bhuriya met all eligibility criteria under the , particularly , having surpassed the 17-year threshold without other disqualifications. He invoked precedents like Budhi vs. State of Rajasthan (2005 Sup (Raj) 2432), Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2002 Sup (Raj) 5), Harpal Singh vs. State (D.B. Crim WP 3249/2025), and Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. State (D.B. Crim WP 366/2018), urging the court to prioritize rehabilitation.
State's Stand: Absconding Seals the Deal
countered that the absconding episode triggered automatic ineligibility under , which bars parole for those who have "ordinarily" escaped custody. The committee's , order stood on this ground, despite the convict's extended incarceration.
Decoding 'Ordinarily': A Door Cracked Open
The bench delved into
's language, noting its qualification by "ordinarily" in the first part—covering absconders—and "unless" in the second, mandating denial only if less than one-fourth of the sentence is served.
"
must be examined from that perspective,"
the court observed, as echoed in contemporary reports on the judgment.
This interpretation allowed weighing Bhuriya's post-recapture conduct: nearly six years of unbroken incarceration atop 17 years total. The escape, while serious, did not irrevocably bar relief.
Key Observations
"The case of a convict is ineligible if the prisoner has. Since the situation contemplated underis qualified by the word 'ordinarily,'must be examined from that perspective."
"It is further noted that the mandatory condition underis qualified by the word 'unless,' which signifies that if a person has not undergone 1/4th of the total sentence, he shall not be eligible for consideration for release on parole."
"Although the petitioner has absconded from Open Air Camp from 23.08.2019 to 19.01.2020 but, thereafter, he has suffered incarceration for almost six years now. Therefore, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered favourably. More particularly, when he has undergone a sentence of more than 17 years."
Parole Granted: Bonds and Conditions Apply
The petition succeeded on . Bhuriya must furnish a of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dausa. Standard terms apply, with liberty for additional safeguards to ensure his return.
This decision signals to parole boards and courts that 's bars are not absolute for reformed long-term inmates, potentially easing access for others with similar histories while upholding public safety through strict conditions. It underscores parole as a rehabilitative tool, not just punishment.
