[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khartaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:66-Db) on 6 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3130/2025
Khartaram, R/o Harijan Basti Jaitaniya Gate Sojat City Ps Sojat
City District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary
2. Collector, Pali
3. Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : By Post
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Reportable
Judgment Reserved on :- 16/12/2025
Pronounced on :- 06/01/2026
By the Court (Per, Arun Monga, J):-
1. An undated letter addressed to this court, sent by post by a
convict, lodged in jail undergoing life imprisonment, has been
converted into the instant writ petition. It reveals a persistent and
deeply troubling pattern i.e. for the fourth time, the convict-
prisoner has been compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court for no reason other than his poverty and inability to furnish
surety and the persistent mechanical approach of the competent
authority by imposing an onerous condition of furnishing of
sureties for actual release on duly sanctioned parole. On three
earlier occasions, the petitioner was similarly forced to approach
this Court solely because the authority insisted upon the
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
furnishing of sureties, in addition to a personal bond, as a
precondition for release on parole. The said insistence was
categorically rejected and waived by this Court each time.
2. Notwithstanding the petitioner's financial incapacity, and
repeated, unequivocal and favorable judicial indulgence by waiver
of the condition of furnishing sureties in past, the competent
authority while sanctioning parole has, yet again, with complete
nonchalance, imposed the very same condition for the fourth
parole, directing the petitioner to furnish two sureties of ₹25,000
each. What is particularly disturbing is the mechanical re-
imposition of an identical condition for the fourth time, despite it's
earlier waiver, not once but thrice by this Court. Regrettably, it
reflects a disturbing institutional apathy to the rule of law. More of
it, later.
3. Succinct facts first.
3.1. Khartaram (petitioner herein) is undergoing sentence in
Central Jail Jodhpur. He has been convicted for the offences under
section 302/34 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment vide
sessions court judgment dated 15.11.2014. As on 30.10.2025, the
petitioner has undergone sentence as below:-
Sr. Particulars Year Months Days
No.
1. Trial Period 00 07 27
2. Original sentence served 10 11 15
3. Total 11 07 12
4. Jail Remission 02 05 04
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
3.2. Pertinently, the petitioner earlier availed first parole of 20
days from 22.01.2019 to 10.02.2019 on furnishing personal bond
of Rs.10,000/- in compliance to the order dated 19.01.2019
passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.06/2019
waiving the imposition of the condition of furnishing surety bond.
Likewise, the prisoner also availed 30 days of second parole from
01.06.2020 to 30.06.2020 on furnishing personal bond of
Rs.25,000/- upon waiver of precondition of furnishing surety bond
in compliance to the order dated 28.05.2020 passed by this Court
in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.151/2020. He also availed 40
days of third parole from 22.08.2022 to 30.09.2022 on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- following waiver of precondition of
furnishing surety bond in compliance to the order dated
16.08.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Petition
No.276/2022.
3.3 Thus, it is the fourth foray of the petitioner/prisoner before
this Court seeking the same relief i.e. waiver of the precondition of
furnishing surety bonds as a precondition of seeking parole. The
bare facts are a telling tale showing that the petitioner is an
indigent person. On previous two occasions he sent letters to this
Court seeking the waiver of the similar condition. Those letters
were converted into writ petitions and the relief was granted.
Third time though he filed a writ petition through counsel seeking
the same relief which too was allowed. Unable to afford a counsel,
this time again he has once again sent a letter seeking the waiver
of precondition of furnishing surety bond.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
3.4. Before approaching this Court, the prisoner submitted an
application seeking grant of fourth periodical regular parole for a
period of 40 days. The said application was forwarded to the
learned District Magistrate, Pali, vide letter dated 26.08.2025. The
District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali, convened a meeting on
26.09.2025 and upon consideration of all relevant aspects, it
allowed the application. The Committee ordered release of the
prisoner on fourth periodical regular parole for 40 days, subject to
furnishing two sureties of ₹25,000/- each along with a personal
bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- vide order dated 29.09.2025.
3.5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has approached
this Court seeking waiver of the condition to furnish two sureties
of ₹25,000/- each. He prays for modification of the order dated
29.09.2025 passed by the District Level Parole Committee, Pali, to
the extent it mandates furnishing of sureties and seeks releases
on parole upon execution of a personal bond alone.
4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State seeking dismissal
of the petition. It has been contended that the petitioner himself
has conceded his inability to furnish sureties for availing parole as
stated in his letter. Similar submissions have been advanced by
the learned PP/Additional Advocate General during the course of
hearing. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, as he is
unable to afford the services of counsel.
4.1. Along with the reply, placed on record is a report of the
Station House Officer, Police Station Sojat City, District Pali. As per
the report, qua the social and economic condition of the prisoner,
it is revealed that the prisoner had two brothers, namely Natha
Ram and Ramesh and four sisters, namely Smt. Manju Devi, Smt.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
Kamla, Smt. Umrav, and Smt. Kanchan. It is further reported that
Natha Ram has expired, while Ramesh is residing at his in-laws'
house at Kumbhalgarh. The report categorically records that the
social and economic condition of the prisoner is not good.
4.2. A report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Jodhpur, is also appended with the reply wherein it is specifically
stated that on three earlier occasions, this court had waived the
condition of surety bond and the petitioner was released on parole
upon furnishing a personal bond alone.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the arguments
addressed by the learned AAG and perused the case file and shall
now proceed to deal with merits thereof.
6. Before adverting to the matter in hand and in order to better
appreciate the intent, concept and procedure of parole, reference
may be had to the applicable Rules i.e. Rajasthan Prisoners
Release on Parole Rules, 2021 framed under section 59 of the
Prison Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the Rules).
7. For ready reference and adjudication of the controversy
herein, the relevant Rules 4, 6, 8, 10, 14 and 15 ibid are
reproduced below: -
"4. Constitution and functions of the District Parole Advisory
Committee.-
(1) The District Parole Advisory Committee shall be consist of
the following, namely:-
(1) District Magistrate - Chairman
(2) Superintendent of Police - Member
(3) Deputy Superintendent/ Secretary Superintendent, Jail -
Member
(4) Probation Officer - Member
(2) The District Committee shall decide as to release of the
prisoners on First, Second, Third and further periodic parole.
(3) The District Committee may revoke the order of release of
Prisoner on parole in appropriate case.
(4) The District Committee shall decide other like matters
arising under these rules which the District Committee is
required to deal with.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
(5) The quorum for transacting the business of the committee
shall be two including the Chairman. Where the Chairman is
unable to attend the meeting of the Committee, the proceedings
of the Committee shall be forwarded to the Chairman for his
approval. The Chairman may approve the proceeding or decides
to place it for consideration of the committee in the next
meeting, the same shall be attended by the Chairman also. The
meeting of committee shall be convened at least once in a month.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x
6. Disposal of Parole application.-
(1) The Superintendent of Jail concerned shall enter the
application in a register in Form-II and put his remarks on the
application regarding condition of release and the prisoner's
conduct in the jail etc. and within fifteen days forward the copy
of it to the District Magistrate of the District in whose
jurisdiction the prisoner is serving the sentence along with his
comments regarding condition of release and the prisoner's
conduct in the jail etc. and the District Magistrate,
Superintendent of Police and Probation Officer of the district in
whose jurisdiction the prisoner wants to spend the parole
period. The District Magistrate of the District in whose
jurisdiction the prisoner is serving the sentence shall enter the
application in a register in Form-III.
(2) After receipt of report form the District Magistrate,
Superintendent of Police and Probation Officer on above
application the Superintendent Jail shall forward all the papers
in original, along with his comments, to the State Committee or
the District Committee, as the case may be, for there
consideration and orders.
(3) If a prisoner is not eligible for parole under these rules and
the Committee keeping in view the condition and circumstances
of the prisoner, thinks it proper to release the prisoner on parole
on humanitarian grounds, it may recommend the case to the
Government. The Government may grant parole to such prisoner
as a special case in relaxation of rules. Decision taken by the
Government shall be final in such cases.
(4) A person sentenced to imprisonment of an offence under any
law relating to matter to which the executive power of the Union
extends shall not entitled for any kind parole, except suspension
of sentence under sub- rule (3) of rule 11 of these rules.
x-x-x-x-x-x
8. Release on Bond and Security.- The Superintendent of Jail
shall release the prisoner on parole when he has furnished
personal bond and security to the District Magistrate and has
thoroughly understood the conditions of his release while on
parole or any other condition which the District Magistrate may
like to impose on such prisoner.
10. Parole Period.- A prisoner, who has completed with
remission, if any, one-fourth of his sentence and subject to good
conduct in the Jail, may be released on first parole for twenty
days including days of journey to home and back and for thirty
days on second parole if his behaviour has been good during the
first parole and for fourty days on third parole if his behaviour
has been good during the second parole. If during the third
parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has
been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be
recommended to the Government through the State Committee
for permanent release on parole if he has served two third of
sentence including remission on such conditions as deemed fit by
the State Committee. The State Government may, on
recommendation of the State Committee, grant parole on such
conditions as deemed necessary by it among them the main
condition being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any
offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any
offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence
in addition to any sentence imposed upon him for such an
offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the
prisoner shall be eligible for release on parole for fourty days
every year on the same conditions for the remaining period of
his sentence:
Provided that the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to
imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is
one of the punishments provided by law or who have been
sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under
section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into one of
life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee
for permanent release on parole unless he has served fourteen
years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the
period of detention during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such
prisoners may be released on parole for fourty days every year
for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the
conditions as stated above.
Provided further that if a prisoner has not applied any regular
periodic parole or not availed any regular parole for any reason
shall not be disqualified for permanent parole.
Provided also that no second and subsequent release on parole,
except release on permanent parole, shall be made unless eleven
months have elapsed from the date of the expiry of the period of
release on parole immediately preceding.
14. Parole period regarded as imprisonment served.- The
period for which a prisoner stays on parole under rule 10,
without violating the conditions laid down for the purpose, shall
be treated as imprisonment served by him. All other kinds of
parole shall be treated as sentence suspended.
15. Aim of parole to encourage good conduct.- The grant of
parole should be regarded as occasion to encourage good
conduct and it shall not be claimed by prisoners as a matter of
right.
8. There is no gain saying that legislative intent of the
provisions for the sanction and release of prisoners on parole is to
encourage good conduct and serve as a reformative and
humanitarian measure. It also serves to preserve the prisoner's
familial and social ties and to aid his reintegration in the society.
Parole is not a matter of executive largesse only and is rather a
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
recognized facet of the rehabilitative philosophy underlying penal
jurisprudence. Being an integral facet of the reformative theory of
punishment, parole and it's conditions must conform to
constitutional mandates of fairness, reasonableness and non-
arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Conditions imposed for grant of parole must, therefore, be
reasonable, non-arbitrary and tailored to the circumstances of the
convict, for actual release on parole. Any insistence on sureties
from an indigent prisoner who is unable to fulfill that condition,
particularly after repeated judicial interventions to the contrary,
frustrates and renders the concession of sanctioned parole illusory
besides defeating its constitutional and statutory purpose.
10. Rule 4 of the aforesaid 2021 Rules delineates the constitution
and functions of the District Parole Advisory Committee and
empowers it to decide parole applications, impose conditions and
revoke parole where warranted. Sub-rule (4) specifically provides
that the District Committee shall decide other like matters arising
under these rules which the District Committee is required to deal
with. Thereunder, the District Committee can impose conditions
for the prisoner's release on parole obviously including the
condition for furnishing personal bond and/or security. This
provision, as is borne out from it's language, is directory and not
mandatory or punitive. Once the Committee decides to release
the prisoner on parole, it's discretion to impose conditions
therefor ought to be exercised in a positive manner to advance
the object of sanctioned parole and to facilitate and actualise the
prisoner's release. In other words, it should not impose unduly
harsh conditions and thereby erect hurdles and artificial or
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
exclusionary barriers thereby delaying, obstructing or frustrating
his release on the sanctioned parole. The Rule vests power in the
Parole Committee to impose conditions but is not a mandate for
the Committee for necessarily imposing and/or insisting upon the
condition of surety bonds in every case. It also does not prohibit
the prisoner's release on parole on a personal bond alone.
11. Ordinarily, no doubt, requiring sureties would be justified as
a mechanism to secure the prisoner's surrender after completion
of parole. However, the law does not, and constitutionally cannot,
countenance a situation where the means defeat the end.
Furnishing of surety is only means to secure the prisoner's
surrender after completion of parole and not an end in itself.
Where a prisoner's indigence and inability to furnish sureties is
established and undisputed, insistence on sureties becomes an
instrument of oppression and exclusion. Parole, once granted by
the competent committee, cannot be rendered meaningless or
illusory by superimposing conditions which the authority itself
knows the prisoner is unable to fulfill. Such an approach amounts
to constructive denial of parole, notwithstanding its formal grant.
12. Speaking once again of the applicable law/Parole Rules, on
requiring of surety/security, neither there is any prohibition on the
parole committee nor is there any mandate that a prisoner cannot
be released on parole without insisting for or putting the condition
of furnishing a security along with personal bond. The imposition
of conditions for release on parole including furnishing
surety/security is a discretion vested in the Committee. It is of
course the duty of the Parole Committee that appropriate
conditions are imposed on the prisoner so as to ensure that he
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
does not either misuse the concession of parole or jump/overstay
the parole period and surrenders at the jail upon completion of the
parole. Ordinarily, no doubt, it is prudent that to secure the
surrender of the prisoner along with personal bond, either one or
two surety bonds as the case may be are also directed as a
precondition. However, what about cases of proven financial
incapacity or indigence and inability to furnish sureties? In the
petitioner's case, the then Division Benches of this Court (seized
of the matter from time to time), not once or twice, but three
times in D.B. Criminal Writs No.6/2019, decided on 19.01.2019,
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 151/2020, decided on 28.05.2020
and D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 276/2022, decided on
16.08.2022 held that in view of the penurious condition of the
petitioner, he deserved waiver of the surety bond. He was directed
to be released on parole by only furnishing personal bond. Twice
he had to send the petition by post as he could not afford an
advocate, whereas third time, he managed to engage a counsel.
Instant is the fourth time when unable to afford a counsel, he has
not been able to avail the parole despite it's having been granted
by the committee due to the condition of two surety bonds to be
furnished, which he could not furnish.
13. In somewhat similar circumstances, Full Bench of Gujarat
High Court in Natia Jiria Vs. State of Gujarat 1 observed that
where there is no material to disbelieve a prisoner's plea of
poverty, the authority is not merely permitted but obliged to
release him on a personal bond. It recognized that even a nominal
surety requirement can operate as a total bar for the indigent,
1 1984 (1) 25 Guj LR 464
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
thereby converting poverty into a disqualifying factor. The Full
bench judgment expressed the its sentiments observing that
Poverty is not a crime. Discretion vested in authorities must be
exercised to advance constitutional protection, not undermine it.
14. The Full bench in Natia Jiria articulated the aforesaid
principle with compelling moral and constitutional clarity as
under:-
"Poverty is no crime. Even so property-oriented approach in statutory
provisions often results in a poor man being prized out of justice. The
acuteness of extreme poverty could be best understood only by
experiencing it. The plight of the impecunious in all its severity may not
be fully realised even by an enlightened class engaged in statute and rule
making. Whatever may be said of the legislations prior to the
Constitution, in an egalitarian society where justice is promised to the
poor and the rich alike, there is no scope for a law which virtually keeps
out a penurious person from the benefit of the law or puts him to the
penalty of a provision for reason of his impecuniousness. If an instance
or illustration of this situation is necessary to convincingly project the
point sought to be made out here, there could be no better case than the
one now before us. A surety bond for Rs. 100/- is by any standard a
nominal surety bond and one cannot think of a surety bond for any lesser
sum. If there is insistence by law on the furnishing of a surety bond any
compassionate and understanding authority cannot stipulate better than
to require a surety bond of Rs. 100/-. But, even so there may be many in
this country who will not be able to take advantage of a right to free air
conferred on him to be availed of on furnishing such a surety bond
merely for the reason that he is unable to get any one to stand surety for
him in a bond of Rs. 100/-. Should he forfeit his right for that reason is
the question.
XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX
To a prisoner who has been deprived of his personal liberty by reason of
the confinement within the four walls of a prison a period of two weeks
during which he could go home and associate with his wife and children
is a great solace. It would be of inestimable value to him.
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX
It is not that because of his conduct and character none is willing to
come forward to stand surety. He has no influence to persuade someone
perhaps from his far off village to come forward and offer himself to
stand surety. His wife and children anxious to have his company may
also not be in a position to come forward and stand surety for him to get
him released. All that would cost money and it is a stark reality that
there are in this country, of ours millions of people who live far far
below the poverty line who cannot afford the luxury of going over to a
prison and expending money however small it may be, to stand surety
after convincing the authorities that they are competent and qualified to
be sureties. What should happen to a prisoner under such
circumstances?
This country has since long awakened to the need for a considerate
approach in matters where weaker sections of the society are involved so
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
as to make the guarantee of equal opportunity a reality. Provisions of
statutes and rules leaving an arena for exercise of discretion to
authorities have always been understood as calling for such exercise on
the part of the authorities as will render their functioning constitutional.
If discretion is conferred on an authority to waive the requirements of the
rules such waiver would be justified to promote the concept of
constitutional protection more than anything else........................x-x-x-
x-x-x
A person in prison is under a great disadvantage and particularly so if
he has no friends or competent relatives to help him out. There is no
reason why when he pleads his poverty and if there is no material to
disbelieve his case of poverty the sanctioning authority should not accept
it in the normal course and release him on his personal bond. In other
words where the sanctioning authority has no reason or no materials to
positively assume that the man could furnish cash security the
sanctioning authority would be obliged to release him on his personal
bond."
15. In light of the views expressed in the judgment supra, the
facts of the case in hand as narrated in the preceding part disclose
a disturbing pattern of sheer mechanical approach and
administrative apathy. Despite the petitioner's penurious condition
coupled with his inability to furnish sureties and this court having
directed his release on periodical parole three times in the past on
personal bond alone, the authorities have once again persisted in
imposing surety conditions. Consequently, parole though
sanctioned, but it remains practically unavailable to the petitioner.
This offends the core constitutional mandate of equality under
Article 14 and the guarantee of dignity implicit in Article 21. A
prisoner does not cease to be a rights-bearing individual merely
because he is incarcerated. Economic incapacity cannot be a
constitutionally valid basis for hostile discrimination against the
have-nots vis-à-vis the haves.
16. In Rakesh Vs. State of Rajasthan DB Criminal Writ
Petition No. 295/2021 decided on 28.07.2021, owing to the
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
convict's poor family conditions and other impediments, this
Court had waived the condition of surety imposed by the Parole
Committee and ordered that he be released on parole on
furnishing personal bond. Further, the Court took a serious note
of the neglect and long delays on the part of the competent
authorities in taking up and considering the cases of the eligible
convicts for release on parole, their languishing in jails for
prolonged periods unable to avail the facility of parole because of
poverty, illiteracy and other trivial reasons, thus frustrating the
spirit of the welfare legislation. In order to mitigate the situation,
this Court had issued certain directions for compliance by the
competent authorities. For ready reference, the relevant part of
the judgment ibid containing those directions is extracted herein
below:
"As per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, every
prisoner, who has served a particular part of his sentence (with the maximum being
5 years for life convicts) earns a right to be considered for release on parole. We
have come across numerous cases wherein, the convicts languishing in jails for
prolonged periods unable to avail the facility of parole because of
poverty/illiteracy and other trivial thereby, frustrating the spirit of the welfare
legislation i.e. the Rules of 2021(previously Rules of 1958).
It is indeed a pathetic state of affairs that the convict petitioner herein, has been
granted first parole after serving imprisonment of 14 years. We therefore direct the
Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority in coordination with
the Director General of Prison, State of Rajasthan shall get prepared a
computerized database of convicts lodged in the prisons all over the State of
Rajasthan which may include the broad details viz. date of arrest of the convict;
sentence served by him/her; jail punishment, if any; period of abscondance, if any;
paroles granted, if any. The compliance report shall be submitted for the Court's
perusal on 14.09.2021.
A prominent sign board shall be installed at the entries of all Central Jails in the
State of Rajasthan displaying in Hindi the gist of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan
Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021. It shall be the duty of the Superintendent
of jail concerned to inform all eligible prisoners of their right to be considered for
being released on parole as soon as their cause becomes ripe."
17. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 2, the Supreme
Court authoritatively held that prisoners do not shed their
2 (1978) 4 SCC 494
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
fundamental rights at the prison gate, save to the extent lawfully
curtailed by procedure established by law.
18. This position was reaffirmed in State of Haryana v.
Mohinder Singh3, wherein it was held that parole serves the twin
objectives of maintaining family and social ties and facilitating
rehabilitation, and that executive discretion in such matters must
be exercised rationally and humanely. Further, in Moti Ram v.
State of Madhya Pradesh4, the Supreme Court deprecated the
mechanical insistence on sureties from indigent persons, holding
that such conditions defeat access to justice and violate the
guarantee of equality before law.
19. We are of the opinion that the insistence on surety bonds in
cases of the prisoner's proven indigence and inability of to furnish
the same is legally unsustainable, constitutionally impermissible
and morally indefensible. Otherwise, instead of being a
rehabilitative tool, it turns into a selective indulgence reserved for
those with means or social capital. Parole is not and cannot be a
privilege of the solvent. If it is to serve it's humanitarian purpose
and legitimacy as an instrument of reform and reintegration, the
prisoner's financial incapacity must never be allowed to operate as
a disqualifier. Release on personal bond in such cases is not an act
of charity but of constitutional compliance. The failure to recognize
this amounts to arbitrary State action, liable to judicial
intervention and correction.
20. When the competent authority knows and/or is satisfied of a
prisoner's indigence and inability to furnish surety bond/s, it would
3 (2000) 3 SCC 394
4 (1978) 4 SCC 47
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
be unrealistic and highly unreasonable to impose such
impracticable condition while granting/sanctioning parole and
more so repeating the same on every subsequent occasion of
grant of parole. Imposition of such condition would only mean
putting barriers against the prisoner's release on parole, even
after it is sanctioned. More than that it would cause repeatedly
humiliation to the prisoner, hurt his sensibilities and dignity
because of poverty and inability to furnish surety bond/s.
21. Reverting to the petitioner's specific case in the light of
aforesaid observations, we direct his release on the sanctioned
parole upon furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000/- undertaking to
comply with the conditions parole and waive off the condition
imposed by the competent authority for furnishing two sureties of
₹25,000 each.
22. In order to ensure compliance with relevant provisions of law
in true spirit, uniformity in decision-making, obviate unnecessary
litigation, undue delay and for mitigating the hardship to the
prisoners' release after sanction/grant of parole, it is deemed
necessary, to formulate certain guidelines for the concerned
competent authorities. We are of the opinion that adoption of the
following measures/guidelines shall go a long way in the desired
direction:
(i) While sanctioning parole, the amount of personal
bond to be furnished by the prisoner should be such as
is commensurate with his economic background and
status and should not be exorbitant, prohibitive or
oppressive.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
(ii) Ordinarily, at the time of sanctioning the first
periodical parole, a condition of appropriate surety
bond/s should also be imposed. However, if before
or at the time of sanction of the even first periodical
parole the Parole Committee is satisfied, on
appropriate inquiry, that the prisoner is indigent and
unable to furnish surety bond, it should exercise it's
discretion not impose the condition of any surety
bond, even at the time of sanctioning the first
periodical parole.
(iii) If a condition of surety bond/s has been is
imposed at the time of sanctioning the first periodical
parole and the prisoner applies for it's waiver and the
Committee is satisfied, on appropriate inquiry, that he
is indigent and unable to furnish surety bond, it should
exercise the discretion to dispense with/waive off the
condition of surety bond/s.
(iv) If on earlier occasion, a prisoner had been
released on parole without furnishing surety bond,
either pursuant to an order passed by the Parole
Committee or by this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, then for his periodical release on parole on the
subsequent occasion/s also the Parole Committee
shall dispense with the requirement of surety bond/s,
unless it has reason, which should be put on record,
to believe that during the interregnum the prisoner
has become capable of furnishing surety.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
(v) The aforesaid guidelines shall, mutatis mutandi,
also apply to and be followed by the competent
authority in cases falling in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of
Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021
which provides that if a prisoner though not eligible
for parole under these rules may be released on parole
on humanitarian grounds by the Government as a
special case in relaxation of rules.
(vi) Once a convict/prisoner has been given a benefit
of waiver of surety bond, immediate intimation shall
be forwarded to Member Secretary, Rajasthan State
Legal Services Authority who shall take steps to make
the entry of the same in the computerized database
along with the other data as already directed vide D.B.
order dated 28.07.2021 passed in Rakesh Vs. State of
Rajasthan, ibid. Once such an entry has been made in
the database it shall be the duty of the State in co-
ordination with Member Secretary, Rajasthan State
Legal Services Authority to take steps for grant of
subsequent periodic parole for such
convicts/prisoners by filing appropriate application
through Legal Aid in future.
23. The concerned authorities are required to ensure that in
future cases of similarly situated indigent prisoners, the discretion
under the Rules ibid read with the aforesaid guidelines is exercised
in a humane, rational and constitutionally compliant manner, so
that the benefit of parole does not remain confined to prisoners
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025]
with financial means. The aforesaid guidelines shall be treated as
directions of this Court.
24. With these observations/directions, the writ petition is
allowed.
(FARJAND ALI),J (ARUN MONGA),J
1-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
