Parole cannot be denied on vague apprehensions: Raj HC

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the mere fact that a convict and the victim reside in the same village cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to deny parole. Emphasizing the reformative philosophy of criminal justice, the Court ruled that vague or speculative apprehensions cannot override the statutory right of a convict to be considered for parole.

The Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sandeep Shah passed the order in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 410/2026, Narayan @ Ram Narayan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on March 13, 2026.

The petitioner, lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer, had approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging the order of the District Collector, Bhilwara dated January 14, 2026, whereby his application for grant of second parole for 30 days was rejected.

It was contended that the rejection was mechanical and based on extraneous considerations, despite the petitioner fulfilling eligibility criteria and having satisfactory conduct in jail.

The State opposed the parole primarily on the ground that the convict and the victim resided in the same village and in close proximity, and that his release could pose a threat to the safety of the victim and her family.

Rejecting the State’s contention, the High Court held that such a ground cannot be applied in an absolute or inflexible manner. The Court observed that if this reasoning were accepted universally, it would defeat the very purpose of parole in criminal jurisprudence.

The Bench noted that parole is not merely an administrative concession but a vital component of the reformative approach to punishment. It is intended to enable convicts to maintain social and familial ties and gradually reintegrate into society.

The Court further held that denial of parole based on generalized apprehensions, without any concrete material indicating a real and imminent threat, is legally unsustainable. Criminal justice, it observed, cannot operate on conjectures or speculative fears.

The Court elaborated that parole serves the critical function of allowing a convict to reconnect with family and society, reflect on past conduct, and reform. Preventing a convict from even visiting his home or native village would render parole illusory and defeat its purpose.

The Bench also relied on precedents including Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan (2017) and Inder Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) (1978), which underscore the importance of parole in preserving family ties and promoting rehabilitation.

In a notable observation, the Court invoked the reformative theory of punishment and cited Mahatma Gandhi’s principle: “Hate the sin and not the sinner,” emphasizing that while wrongdoing must be condemned, the offender must be given an opportunity to reform.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the importance of protecting the victim’s safety and dignity. It held that such concerns can be effectively addressed by imposing stringent conditions rather than denying parole altogether.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court granted the petitioner second parole for 30 days subject to strict conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, no contact, communication, or proximity with the victim or her family and mandatory appearance before the local police station once every 10 days

The Court clarified that such conditions strike a balance between ensuring public safety and advancing the reformative objectives of parole.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order rejecting parole was set aside.

Case Title
Narayan @ Ram Narayan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 410/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur

Bench
Hon’ble Justice Farjand Ali
Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Order
13 March 2026

Advocates
For the Petitioner
Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
Ms. Kavita Sharma
Mr. Vakil Kumar

For the Respondents
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG

Judgments Relied Upon
Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55
Inder Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 4 SCC 161