[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1264/2026
Mukesh Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar, S/o Parvatraj R/o Panghat
Road Barmer, Presently House No. 9/798 Choupasani Housing
Board Ps Devnagar, Dist. Jodhpur, Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Collector, Barmer
3. Supdt, Central Jail, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : By post
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
01/04/2026
1. The instant criminal writ petition has been instituted upon a
letter petition sent by the convict prisoner from jail through the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur and has been registered as a
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment.
His case for grant of permanent parole was considered by the
State Level Parole Committee and vide order dated 30.12.2025
(Annex.1), he has been granted permanent parole subject to the
condition of furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
each along with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1264/2026]
3. The present petition has been preferred seeking
relaxation/modification of the aforesaid condition on the ground
that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the required
sureties. From the contents of the letter addressed by the
petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner belongs to a financially
weak background and has expressed his inability to arrange
sureties of the amount stipulated in the order. He has specifically
prayed that he may be released on permanent parole on personal
bond.
4. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
5. It is not in dispute that the competent authority has already
found the petitioner entitled for grant of permanent parole. Thus,
the entitlement of the petitioner to be released on permanent
parole is not under challenge.
6. The only issue which arises for consideration is with regard
to the condition requiring furnishing of two sureties of Rs.50,000/-
each.
7. Permanent parole, as contemplated under the Rajasthan
Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, is a reformative measure
intended to facilitate the social reintegration of a convict who has
demonstrated satisfactory conduct and has undergone substantial
period of incarceration. The object of granting such benefit is not
merely conditional release, but meaningful reintegration into
society while maintaining a balance between individual liberty and
societal interest.
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1264/2026]
8. At the same time, the conditions imposed while granting
parole are required to ensure that the convict adheres to lawful
conduct and remains available to the authorities. However, such
conditions must be reasonable and capable of compliance. A
condition which is excessively onerous or incapable of being
fulfilled by the convict, particularly in view of his socio-economic
background, may render the grant of parole ineffective in practice.
9. In the present case, the petitioner, through his letter, has
specifically brought on record his financial incapacity and lack of
means to furnish two sureties of the amount stipulated. The said
aspect assumes significance, particularly when the State itself,
upon consideration of relevant factors, has found the petitioner
suitable for permanent parole.
10. Thus, while the condition of sureties cannot be dispensed
with entirely, as it serves as a safeguard to secure the presence
and conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the
condition deserves to be suitably moderated so as to balance the
objective of parole with the practical ability of the petitioner to
comply.
11. In these circumstances, ends of justice would be met by
reducing the requirement of sureties.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The condition
imposed in the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annex.1) requiring the
petitioner to furnish two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each is modified
to the extent that the petitioner shall furnish one surety in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- along with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14850-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1264/2026]
the satisfaction of the concerned authority. All other conditions as
stipulated in the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annex.1) shall remain
intact and shall be strictly complied with by the petitioner.
13. It is further directed that in case of violation of any of the
conditions of parole, it shall be open to the competent authority to
take action in accordance with law.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
15. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Jodhpur for immediate compliance.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (FARJAND ALI),J
54-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
