Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Alias Bheru Bheel vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:29061-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1180/2025
Bheru Alias Bheru Bheel, R/o Chindiya (Dhangadhmau Khurd) Ps
Bhainsrodgarh, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary
2. Collector, Chittorgarh
3. Superintendent, Central Jail Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
07/07/2025
1. This petition has been sent by post by the petitioner seeking
parole of 7 days against the order dated 28.01.2025 of the Parole
Committee, Chittorgarh, vide which, the parole of the petitioner
was rejected.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
undergone total custody of 9 years, 7 months and 25 days.
Counsel further submits that the petitioner was granted first
parole from 17.08.2021 to 05.09.2021 for 20 days.
2.1 Counsel further submits that though the petitioner did not
surrender himself in the custody as per the parole conditions on
05.09.2021 as stipulated but was subsequently arrested on
24.11.2021.
2.2 Counsel further submits that since then, a long period has
elapsed and thus, the petitioner is entitled for consideration for 7
days' parole as per Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on
Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1958').
[2025:RJ-JD:29061-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-1180/2025]
2.3 Counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this
Court to Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 which reads as follows :-
'18. Punishment for breach of conditions of Parole - The following
punishments may be awarded to the prisoners for over staying
their sanctioned parole period or for breach of any other
condition laid down namely:-
(i) He should not be let off on parole in future unless the
Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that he will not commit
any breach of conditions in future.
(ii) In case the prisoner is released on parole on the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned after
the breach of condition, the period of release on parole would be
7 days excluding days of journey to home and back. The next
Parole will be 15 days (provided he has behaved himself well
during the period) and 30 days in the fourth parole.
(iii) If the prisoner again overstays or commits any breach of the
terms of the parole, he shall be permanently debarred from the
concession of release on parole. '
2.4 Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 18 (i)
and (ii) of the Rules of 1958 as quoted above requires the
recommendation of Superintendent of Jail for release on parole
but such parole would be only of 7 days excluding the days of
journey to home and back.
2.5 Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq Vs. The State
of Rajasthan AIR 2017 SC 4986, particularly para 14 to 18,
which are reproduced as under :-
'14) From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst
the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the
most important ground, which stands out, is that a
prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social
ties. For this purpose, he has to come out for some time so
that he is able to maintain his family and social contact.
This reason finds justification in one of the objectives
behind sentence and punishment, namely, reformation of
the convict. The theory of criminology, which is largely
accepted, underlines that the main objectives which a
State intends to achieve by punishing the culprit are:
deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. When
we recognise reformation as one of the objectives, it
provides justification for letting of even the life convicts for
short periods, on parole, in order to afford opportunities to
such convicts not only to solve their personal and family
problems but also to maintain their links with the society.
[2025:RJ-JD:29061-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-1180/2025]
Another objective which this theory underlines is that even
such convicts have right to breathe fresh air, al beit for
periods. These gestures on the part of the State, along
with other measures, go a long way for redemption and
rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately aimed
for the good of the 2 (2000) 3 SCC 394 society and,
therefore, are in public interest.
15) The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for
a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main
purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an
opportunity to solve their personal and family problems
and to enable them to maintain their links with society.
Even citizens of this country have a vested interest in
preparing offenders for successful re-entry into society.
Those who leave prison without strong networks of
support, without employment prospects, without a
fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they
will return, and without resources, stand a significantly
higher chance of failure. When offenders revert to criminal
activity upon release, they frequently do so because they
lack hope of merging into society as accepted citizens.
Furloughs or parole can help prepare offenders for success.
16) Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting
parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of
sentencing, other competing public interest has also to be
kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a particular
case parole or furlough is to be granted or not. This public
interest also demands that those who are habitual
offenders and may have the tendency to commit the
crime again after their release on parole or have the
tendency to become threat to the law and order of the
society, should not be released on parole. This aspect
takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely,
deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the
experience that great number of crimes are committed by
the offenders who have been put back in the street after
conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a
particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or
not, the aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind.
To put it tersely, the authorities are supposed to address
the question as to whether the convict is such a person
who has the tendency to commit such a crime or he is
showing tendency to reform himself to become a good
citizen.
17) Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for grant
of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate
those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet
administrators ought to encourage those offenders who
demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society and
whose behaviour shows that aspire to live as law-abiding
citizens. Thus, parole program should be used as a tool to
shape such adjustments.
[2025:RJ-JD:29061-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-1180/2025]
18) To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State
that runs the administration on behalf of the society and
for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful
of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in
regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. It
is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the
authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the
society to render it immune from those who are prone to
criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to
indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a
Court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the
discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of
imprisonment is to render the society immune from the
criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore,
understandable that while meting out humane treatment
to the convicts, care has to be taken to ensure that
kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the
society. Naturally enough, the authorities would be
anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on
furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit another
crime when he is at large for the time-being under the
furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of
penal reform.'
3. Learned GA-cum-AAG in his report has submitted that the
reason for denying the 7 days' parole was earlier non-compliance
by the petitioner to the parole conditions by not surrendering
before the Court on 05.09.2021 i.e. the due date after availing 20
days' of parole and was subsequently arrested on 24.11.2021.
3.1 Learned AAG does not refute the custody period but fairly
submits that the details submitted by him today, reflects that the
convict had not complied with the condition of regular parole on
the first occasion as already mentioned above but his conduct in
Jail was satisfactory and, thus, the Superintendent, Central Jail
Udaipur has categorically recommended his release on parole.
3.2 Learned AAG also submits that the only reason for the denial
by other agencies was the petitioner not adhering to the
conditions of first parole of 20 days.
4. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances and after
examining the precedent cited above, the Rule 18 of the Rules of
[2025:RJ-JD:29061-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-1180/2025]
1958 and the recommendation for 7 days' parole by the
Superintendent, Central Jail Udaipur, the conduct of the petitioner
in Jail as per the report dated 17.12.2024 of the Superintendent,
Central Jail Udaipur, which is taken on record and the time elapsed
since the default was made by the petitioner, this Court deems it
appropriate to allow this petition and grant 7 days' parole to the
convict-prisoner.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed and the
Superintendent, Central Jail Udaipur is directed to release convict-
prisoner Bheru Alias Bheru Bheel, on parole for a period of 7
days from the date of his release provided he furnishes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and with two sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each, one of which should be of the close family
member of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent
Central Jail, Udaipur and shall surrender before the concerned
authority immediately on the expiry of 7 th day of the parole period
to be notified by the Superintendent Central Jail, Udaipur referred
to supra, being expired by 5:00 P.M., and shall maintain peace and
tranquility during parole period. In case of failure to surrender by
convict-prisoner on stipulated date, the conduct shall be taken into
consideration for any application for parole moved by him in
future.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
35-ajayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
