[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinit Alias Tinku vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 113/2026
Vinit Alias Tinku S/o Shri Rodi Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Budhji Ka Darwaja, Jagdish Chowk Presently Kothariyo Ki Gali,
Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udapiur. (At Present Lodged
In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home
Department Jaipur. (Raj).
2. The District Collector, Udaipur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG, with
Mr. K.S. Kumawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
09/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner-convict invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated
06.05.2025, whereby the State Government declined the request
of the petitioner for permanent parole under the provisions of the
Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The petitioner
seeks setting aside of the said order and consequential directions
for grant of permanent parole in accordance with the statutory
rules.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
2. The record indicates that the petitioner stands convicted by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in
Sessions Case No.30/2013, vide judgment dated 01.02.2014, for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, and has been sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine
of Rs.25,000/-, with a default sentence. The petitioner is presently
lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur.
3. The nominal roll placed before the Court indicates that the
petitioner has undergone approximately 12 years and 05 days of
actual imprisonment, apart from 3 years and 02 days of detention
during investigation and trial, and has also earned remission
during incarceration. In aggregate, the petitioner has completed
more than 16 years of sentence including remission. It is also not
disputed that since the date of conviction the petitioner has
remained continuously incarcerated and has not been released on
parole at any point of time.
4. The question of release of prisoners on parole in the State of
Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on
Parole Rules, 1958. Rule 9 of the said Rules provides the scheme
for grant of parole and contemplates release of a prisoner on first,
second and third parole subject to good conduct, and further
provides that if the conduct of the prisoner remains satisfactory
and the authorities are satisfied that he is not likely to relapse into
crime, the case may be recommended to the State Government
for permanent release on parole. The proviso to Rule 9 stipulates
that in the case of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment for
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
offences where death penalty is one of the punishments
prescribed by law, such cases shall not ordinarily be placed for
consideration of permanent parole unless the prisoner has
undergone fourteen years of imprisonment excluding remission
but including the period of detention during investigation or trial.
Thus, the statutory scheme makes it clear that a prisoner
convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC becomes eligible
for consideration of permanent parole upon completion of the
requisite period of incarceration. Rule 14 of the Rules also
indicates that although certain classes of prisoners, including
those convicted under Section 302 IPC, are ordinarily not eligible
for release on parole, such cases may still be considered with
special reasons having regard to the circumstances of the offence
and the conduct of the prisoner. At the same time, Rule 13 of the
Rules clarifies that parole is intended as a concession to encourage
good conduct among prisoners and cannot be claimed as a matter
of right.
5. The application submitted by the petitioner for permanent
parole was processed in accordance with the Rules and reports
were obtained from the District Magistrate, Udaipur, the
Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, and the concerned department
of the State Government. Upon consideration of these reports, the
matter was placed before the State Level Parole Committee, which
recommended rejection of the request. The State Government
accepted the recommendation and by order dated 06.05.2025
declined the petitioner's request for permanent parole.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has already undergone more than sixteen years of incarceration,
thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement for consideration of
permanent parole under the Rules. It is submitted that the jail
authorities themselves have certified that the petitioner's overall
conduct in prison is satisfactory, and that the disciplinary
punishments recorded in the jail record relate only to absence
from workshop duties and do not involve any act of violence or
misconduct of serious nature. Learned counsel further submits
that the adverse reports relied upon by the authorities are largely
based on apprehensions expressed by certain local persons and do
not reflect any recent conduct of the petitioner during
incarceration.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the competent authorities considered the matter on the basis
of reports received from the district authorities and the State
Government has exercised its discretion in declining the request
for permanent parole, which ordinarily should not be interfered
with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. It is well settled that the grant of parole is primarily an
administrative function governed by statutory rules, and courts
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 ordinarily do not
substitute their opinion for that of the competent authority.
However, judicial review is available where the decision suffers
from arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or reliance upon
material that does not reasonably sustain the conclusion reached.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
9. In the present case, the impugned decision is primarily
founded upon the reports submitted by the district authorities.
The report of the Superintendent of Police describes the petitioner
as a person of "high temperament" and possessing a "fighter
nature" and further records that his release may create danger to
family members. The report also indicates that these observations
are based upon statements attributed to the petitioner's wife and
certain local residents. At the same time, it is not disputed that
the petitioner has remained continuously incarcerated since the
year 2014 and has not been released on parole at any point
during this period. The jail record placed before the Court does not
indicate any incident suggesting violent behaviour, aggression,
escape attempt, or misconduct reflecting a propensity for serious
criminal activity during incarceration. The disciplinary punishments
recorded in the jail record relate only to absence from workshop
duties and do not disclose any instance of violence or prison
disorder.
10. In these circumstances, the characterization of the petitioner
as a person of high temperament or fighter nature appears to be
based primarily upon perceptions expressed by local sources,
rather than upon any contemporaneous incident recorded during
his incarceration. Such reports, while relevant for administrative
assessment, necessarily represent a precautionary opinion based
upon local inputs, rather than a conclusion drawn from recent
objective conduct of the prisoner.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
11. The record also refers to an observation that the petitioner is
suffering from mental illness. However, the material placed before
the Court does not include any psychiatric evaluation report,
medical board opinion, diagnosis record, or treatment details
substantiating the said observation. In the absence of such
supporting medical material, the reference to mental illness
appears to be a general remark recorded in the administrative
reports rather than a conclusion supported by detailed medical
evidence.
12. The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the offence for
which the petitioner stands convicted. Nevertheless, the criminal
justice system also recognises the importance of reformation and
rehabilitation of prisoners, and the scheme of parole embodied in
the Rules is intended to balance the objectives of societal safety
with the reformative philosophy of punishment.
13. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone substantial
incarceration exceeding sixteen years, and the jail authorities
themselves have certified his overall conduct in prison to be
satisfactory. No material has been placed on record indicating any
violent behaviour or serious misconduct during incarceration.
14. In these circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's
request for permanent parole appears to have been based
primarily on general apprehensions rather than objective material
demonstrating present risk.
15. Having regard to the long period of incarceration already
undergone by the petitioner, the satisfactory conduct recorded by
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
the jail authorities, and the absence of concrete material
demonstrating violent behaviour during imprisonment, this Court
is of the view that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 declining
the petitioner's request for permanent parole cannot be sustained.
16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
06.05.2025 passed by the State Government rejecting the
petitioner's request for permanent parole is set aside. The
respondents are directed to release the petitioner on permanent
parole in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan
Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, subject to the petitioner
furnishing the requisite personal bond and sureties to the
satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned, and subject to
compliance with the conditions ordinarily imposed for permanent
parole, including maintenance of peace and good conduct.
17. The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the
Probation Officer for the unexpired portion of the sentence in
accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release
on Parole Rules, 1958, and shall comply with such lawful
directions as may be issued by the said authority from time to
time.
18. It shall be open to the competent authority to impose such
further reasonable conditions as may be necessary for ensuring
maintenance of peace and proper supervision of the petitioner
while on permanent parole.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12058-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLW-113/2026]
19. The necessary order for release shall be passed by the
competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (FARJAND ALI),J
71-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 05:41:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
