Rajasthan High Court grants permanent parole to convict who served over 21 years in jail

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the rejection of permanent parole to a convict undergoing life imprisonment for over two decades, directing the authorities to release him on permanent parole after finding no material to show that his release would endanger the peace and normal functioning of society.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the State Level Parole Advisory Committee’s decision denying permanent parole to the petitioner, a convict serving a life sentence, on the ground that he was a habitual offender who might indulge in criminal activities if released.

The petitioner had been convicted vide a trial court judgment dated Oct 26, 2005 under Sections 341 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. By the time of the present petition, he had served more than 21 years, 3 months and 4 days of his sentence, with satisfactory jail conduct. His application for permanent parole was rejected by the State Level Parole Advisory Committee at its meeting held on Jul 7, 2023, the order on which was issued on Aug 8, 2023, on the ground that he was a habitual offender likely to relapse into crime.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had engaged in any criminal activity during a previous parole period, and that the committee had rejected his application in a mechanical manner. He sought quashing of the committee’s proceedings and the consequent order, relying on a coordinate bench decision of this Court in Balveer v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 757/2020, decided Jan 18, 2021).

The learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had twice jumped parole in the past, resulting in FIRs being registered against him, and that being a habitual offender, there was every likelihood that he would indulge in criminal activities if released.

Referring to the coordinate bench’s observations in Balveer, the Court noted:

“Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages himself in any untoward incident during permanent parole, same can be withdraw and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner has already served more than 18 years, 3 months and 14 days sentence and his conduct in jail is satisfactory and more particularly in view of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958, we deem it just and proper to allow the present petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated 27.1.2020 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused to him.”

Applying the same approach to the facts before it, the bench held:

“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the jail conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the year 2020; the convict petitioner has already served more than 21 years, 3 months and 4 days of sentence; there is no complaint about general conduct of the petitioner in relation to other co-petitioners and staff of the prison; and no material has been placed on record to disclose that petitioner’s release on permanent parole shall cause any injury societal fabric and its normal peace, we are inclined to allow this petition.”

The petition was accordingly allowed, and the proceedings of the Parole Advisory Committee dated Jul 7, 2023, along with the consequent order issued on Aug 8, 2023, were quashed and set aside. The concerned authority was directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of Rs 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate, with the stipulation that if he commits any undesirable activity during the parole period, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence, and that he shall maintain peace and tranquility and abide by any other conditions imposed by the authority.

Title: Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1332/2025

Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:24848-DB

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. B.R. Choudhary

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG, with Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG, and Ms. Neha Goyal