Sampat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3834 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sampat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 317/2026

Sampat Singh S/o Panna Singh, Aged About 46 Years, At Present

Lodged In Central Jail , Ajmer Through His Wife Leela W/o Shri

Sampat Singh 44Yrs R/o Govliya Kekri Ps Bhinay Ajmer
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home Jaipur
2.       The Director General Jail, Jaipur
3.       The District Collector, Ajmer
4.       The Superintendent, Central Jail Ajmer
                                                                    ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati

                                   Mr. Swapan Chouhan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

Reportable-

13/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

convict seeking grant of permanent parole under the

Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 and

assailing the decision of the District Parole Advisory

Committee whereby his application for parole came to be

rejected.

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the

petitioner applied for permanent parole before the

respondent authorities in earlier round of litigation by way of

filing a D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14630/2015 and vide order

dated 08.02.2016 he was released on permanent parole by

Superintendent of Jail, Ajmer.

3. After his release on 02.05.2016, he committed an offence

for which a Case No.21/2017, bearing FIR No.198/2016 got

registered against him at Police Station Masuda, District

Ajmer for having accusation of penal provision of NDPS Act

and 380 and 457 of IPC. He was arrested and subjected to

trial and after a rigorous trial, he was convicted and

sentenced vide judgment dated 17.09.2024. He was

convicted for committing offence under Section 380 of IPC

and sentenced to suffer five years imprisonment and eight

years for offence under Section 457 of IPC.It is not disputed

that he has undergone and suffered the sentence as directed

by the learned trial court. In this background of the case, he

again moved a petition for his permanent parole. A reply to

the writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the State of

Rajasthan specifically mentioning that till 30.01.2026, the

petitioner has served 28 years 10 months and 8 days

imprisonment. It is averred that while taking a liberal

approach, the petitioner was released on permanent parole

on 09.02.2016, however, he made breach of the conditions

and committed offence during the period of parole and in

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

that criminal case also he was found guilty and these

circumstances are sufficient to dis-entitle him to get benefit

of parole. The earlier order of permanent parole granted in

the year 2016 was revoked vide order dated 15.03.2022.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and have carefully perused the record as well as the

attendant facts and circumstances of the case. It is indeed

true that the petitioner, while earlier extended the

concession of permanent parole, had misused the liberty so

granted in his favour and had committed an offence during

the subsistence of the said parole, which ultimately

culminated in his conviction. Nevertheless, it cannot be lost

sight of that the petitioner has, as on date, undergone

incarceration for an exceptionally long duration of nearly

twenty-nine years. The breach of the conditions of parole

admittedly occurred in the year 2016 and a considerable

period of almost a decade has elapsed thereafter. The

philosophy underlying the parole system is essentially

reformative and rehabilitative in nature and not merely

punitive. In these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that the mere fact that the petitioner had

earlier abused the concession of parole cannot, by itself, lead

to an irrebuttable presumption that he would necessarily

repeat such conduct in future or that the possibility of his

reformation has been completely foreclosed. Having regard

to the prolonged period of incarceration already undergone

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

and the passage of considerable time since the earlier

breach, the petitioner deserves to be afforded an opportunity

to demonstrate his reformation and reintegrate into the

social mainstream.

5. In the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be

adequately subserved if the petitioner is granted a limited

opportunity to establish that he is capable of maintaining

lawful conduct outside the prison environment. Such release,

for a short duration in the first instance, would operate as a

probationary test of his conduct and behaviour. In other

words, the petitioner may initially be released for a brief

period so that his conduct during such period may be

objectively assessed by the authorities. If during the said

period he maintains good behaviour, resides peacefully in

society and returns to the prison authorities within the

stipulated time without committing any breach of the

conditions imposed upon him, the competent authority may

thereafter consider extending the duration of his parole in a

progressive manner. Subject to continued satisfactory

conduct and the manifestation of genuine signs of

reformation, the petitioner's claim for permanent parole may

thereafter be considered in accordance with law. In this

backdrop, this Court is not inclined, at this stage, to grant

the relief of permanent parole as prayed for by the petitioner

and deems it appropriate to extend to him the benefit of

release in accordance with the mechanism contemplated

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole)

Rules, 2021.

6. Accordingly, while this Court is not persuaded to accede to

the prayer for grant of permanent parole at this juncture, it

considers it appropriate, in the peculiar facts of the case and

keeping in view the reformative object of the parole

jurisprudence, to direct that the petitioner be considered for

release in terms of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Prisoners

(Release on Parole) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Rules of 2021"). The said Rule specifically provides the

statutory framework governing cases where a prisoner has

previously breached the conditions of parole or overstayed

the sanctioned period of release. The provision contemplates

a calibrated and cautious approach by prescribing that such

prisoner ordinarily shall not be released on parole for a

specified period and thereafter, subject to satisfactory

conduct and the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail

concerned that the prisoner is unlikely to commit any further

breach, the prisoner may be granted parole for a limited

duration in a phased and incremental manner. The Rule

further envisages that in the first instance the prisoner may

be released for a period of seven days, excluding the days of

journey to and from his residence, followed by a period of

fifteen days during the second parole and thirty days during

the third parole, provided his conduct during the earlier

periods of release remains satisfactory. The Rule

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

simultaneously incorporates a stringent safeguard by

stipulating that in the event of any further breach or

overstay of parole conditions, the prisoner shall be

permanently disentitled from the concession of parole. For

ready reference, Rule 20 of the Rules of 2021 is reproduced

hereinbelow.-

"20. Punishment for breach of conditions of Parole. In addition to punishment specified in the Act, the following punishments may be awarded to the prisoners for over staying their sanctioned parole period or for breach of any other conditions laid down, namely:-

(a) Prisoner should not be let off on parole in future at least two years and after two years if the Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that Prisoner shall not commit any breach of condition in future, the prisoner may be released on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail concerned, the period of release on parole shall be seven days excluding days of journey to home and back. The period of next parole shall be fifteen days in the second parole and thirty days in the third parole, if prisoner has behaved well during the previous parole period.

(b) If the prisoner again over-stays or commits any breach of the conditions of the parole, prisoner shall be permanently debarred from the concession of release on parole.

7. The issue relating to grant of parole to a prisoner who had

earlier absconded while on parole has also been considered

by a Division Bench of this Court in Deva v. State of

Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.179/2020),

wherein the Court observed that even in such circumstances

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

an opportunity may be extended to the prisoner so as to

enable him to reintegrate into society, subject to appropriate

safeguards.

8. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

we are of the view that to achieve the object of parole and to

give a further opportunity to the petitioner to make review,

remorse or repentance of the crime and sin he committed, a

further opportunity for rehabilitation to go in mainstream of

society ought to have been given. The satisfactory conduct

reported in jail and the reformative objective underlying the

parole system, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner

deserves to be granted one opportunity of parole, subject to

strict conditions.

9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner-

convict Sampat Singh S/o Panna Singh shall be released on

parole for a period of seven days from the date of his actual

release (excluding days of journey to home and back),

provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- along with one solvent surety of Rs.50,000/- to

the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail

concerned.

10. The Superintendent, Central Jail shall be at liberty to

impose appropriate and reasonable conditions to ensure that

the petitioner maintains peace and good behaviour during

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12006-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLW-317/2026]

the period of parole and surrenders back to the jail

authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period.

                                   (SANDEEP SHAH),J                                                    (FARJAND ALI),J
                                    22-chhavi/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 06:00:03 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)