[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lala Alias Lalshankar Alias Jigar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:3642-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3667/2025
Lala @ Lalshankar @ Jigar S/o Shri Gattu Lal, Aged About 30
Years, At present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur, through his
father Shri Gattu Lal S/o Shri Somaji, Age About 55 Years, R/o
Village Petfala Dadiya, P. S. Dambola, District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Department of Home Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General (Jails), Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Dungarpur.
4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
21/01/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner-convict for releasing him on permanent parole.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State
Level Parole Committee in its meeting held on 09.09.2025 has
wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing him
on permanent parole. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life in
pursuance of the judgment dated 24.04.2015 passed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur. He also submits
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:57:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3642-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-3667/2025]
that earlier the petitioner has availed the benefit of releasing him
on parole on six occasions and on all the six occasions, he has
surrendered back to the jail authorities on time. He further
submits that during the parole period, he was not involved in any
kind of offence and his conduct in jail during his incarceration was
also satisfactory.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner is fulfilling all the requisite criteria for releasing him on
permanent parole as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners
Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein after referred to 'the Rules
of 1958') more particularly, proviso to Rule 9, which puts an
embargo on consideration of an application for grant of permanent
parole before completion of 14 years only in cases where the
offence, for which an applicant has been convicted with a
punishment of death penalty. He further submits that in the
present case, the petitioner has been sentenced of imprisonment
for life and he has completed incarceration for almost 12 years
and, therefore, his application for release on permanent parole
has wrongly been rejected by the State Level Parole Committee in
its meeting dated 09.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by
the judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in D.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No.1828/2023 (Heeralal V/s. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.). He, therefore, prays that the petitioner
may be released on permanent parole.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:57:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3642-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-3667/2025]
convict and submits that the decision taken by the State Level
Parole Committee in its meeting dated 09.09.2025 is just, proper
and correct.
6. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment for remainder of life and he has not
been awarded death penalty. The conduct of the petitioner while
on parole and during incarceration in Jail is reported satisfactory.
The proviso to Rule 9 very clearly puts an embargo for not
releasing a person on permanent parole if he has been awarded
death penalty and unless a person has served 14 years of
imprisonment. Since the case of the petitioner falls within the
eligibility criteria of the Rules of 1958, therefore, we are of the
view that the State Level Parole Committee has committed an
error while rejecting the application for permanent parole of the
petitioner.
8. The grounds on which the Committee has rejected the
application are very general grounds without there being any
specific instance reported against the petitioner. Further, the
benefit of release of the petitioner on permanent parole cannot be
denied on the ground that if the petitioner is released on
permanent parole, the complainant party may face threat at the
hands of petitioner. There is no foundation for the apprehension
raised by the Committee while rejecting the application of the
petitioner.
9. In view of the unambiguous provision contained in proviso to
Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and in light of the judgment dated
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:57:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3642-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-3667/2025]
14.12.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Heeralal (supra),
the present criminal writ petition merits acceptance and the same
is allowed. The order dated 06.11.2025 as well as the minutes of
the meeting held on 09.09.2025, qua the petitioner, are quashed
and set-aside and the petitioner- Lala @ Lalshankar @ Jigar
S/o Shri Gattu Lal is released on permanent parole on the usual
terms and conditions imposed by the Committee.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
104-Shahenshah/SunilS/-
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:57:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
