[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Asharam vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53523-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3233/2025
Asharam S/o Shri Nand Lal Ji, Aged About 27 Years, At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer Through His Sister Smt Maina Regar
W/o Shri Ramdayal Ji D/o Nand Lal Ji R/o Village Rased Ps Kotdi
District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Det. Of Home, Rajasthan. Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Bhilwara
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/12/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
convict, Asharam, challenging the adverse recommendations
dated 17.04.2025 issued by the District Parole Advisory
Committee, Bhilwara, whereby his application for grant of first
parole for 20 days was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has a statutory right to be considered for first parole, and the
reasons assigned by the Committee are irrelevant. He argues that
no authority has made any adverse remark regarding the
petitioner's conduct in custody. The rejection is based solely on
the apprehension that, since both the petitioner and the victim
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:49:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53523-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-3233/2025]
belong to the same village, his release may endanger his own
safety due to existing enmity, and may also lead to unrest in the
community. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of a
co-ordinate Bench in Sahi Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 148/2024, decided on
28.02.2024), wherein, in similar circumstances, parole was
granted on the condition that the convict would stay at a location
away from the victim's residence and would not visit the victim.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the
grant of parole, contending that the petitioner stands convicted
under the POCSO Act for a grave offence of sexual assault on a
minor, and hence should not be released on parole. It is argued
that releasing the petitioner would adversely affect the social and
psychological well-being of the victim, whose residence is near
that of the petitioner.
4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is willing to spend the parole period at his sister-in-
law's residence, which is situated at a distance from the victim's
house.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Upon examination of the material, we find that the rejection
of the petitioner's first parole is based on vague and non-specific
apprehensions. The adverse reports refer only to "mutual enmity,"
a "possibility of breach of peace," and "public resentment," without
citing any concrete incident, recent complaint, or material
demonstrating a real and credible likelihood of disturbance. Such
generalised observations, unsupported by objective facts, cannot
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:49:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53523-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-3233/2025]
constitute valid grounds to deny first parole, particularly when the
authority has failed to show independent application of mind and
appears to have mechanically relied on the police and
departmental opinions.
7. The nominal roll reflects that, as of 10.11.2025, the
petitioner has undergone 9 years, 3 months, and 22 days of actual
imprisonment, and his conduct in custody has been reported as
GOOD. No adverse material has been recorded against him.
8. The petitioner has also expressed willingness to reside at his
sister-in-law's house, which is sufficiently distant from the victim's
residence, thereby addressing concerns of proximity or potential
confrontation.
9. In the premise, we are satisfied that the statutory purpose
of first parole i.e. controlled social reintegration, cannot be
defeated by speculative or stereotyped apprehensions. The
petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be released on first parole for a
period of 20 days, subject to appropriate safeguards.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. It is directed
that the petitioner shall be released on first parole for 20 days
upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties
of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of
the Central Jail concerned and upon furnishing a written
undertaking before the Jail Superintendent that (i) he shall stay at
a place away from the residence of the victim, namely his sister-
in-law's house, and (ii) he shall not visit, approach, or contact the
victim or her family in any manner during the parole period. He
shall abide by all other conditions prescribed under the Rajasthan
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:49:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53523-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-3233/2025]
Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The duration of parole
shall be computed from the date of his actual release.
(FARJAND ALI),J (ARUN MONGA),J
8-divya/-
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:49:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
