Narayan Alias Ram Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3871 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan Alias Ram Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 410/2026

Narayan Alias Ram Narayan S/o Shri Nainu Ram Adopted Son
Chatra Ram, Aged About 36 Years, At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Ajmer R/o Jhalra P S Asind District Bhilwara Through His
Maternal Uncle Deeparam S/o Shri Gopi Ram Aged Aboud 61 R/o
Village Kherpura P S Bigod District Bhilwara
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.         State Of Rajasthan, Of Home Dept Jaipur
2.         The District Collector, Bhilwara
3.         The Superintendent, Central Jail Ajmer
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
                                    Ms. Kavita Sharma
                                    Mr. Vakil Kumar
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order

Reportable 13/03/2026

1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner

assailing the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned

District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the petitioner's prayer

seeking grant of second parole for a period of 30 days has been

declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parole

application of the petitioner has been rejected on mechanical and

extraneous considerations, despite the fact that the petitioner

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLW-410/2026]

fulfils the eligibility criteria under the applicable rules and his

conduct in jail has been reported to be satisfactory. It is further

submitted that vague apprehensions expressed by the police

authorities cannot constitute valid grounds for denial of parole.

3. Learned AAG submitted that since the victim and the convict

reside in the same village and in close proximity to each other, the

release of the convict on parole may pose a potential threat to the

safety and security of the victim as well as her family members,

and therefore, he ought not to be granted the benefit of parole.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned AAG as well as perused the material available on record.

5. The apprehension expressed by the learned AAG that the

victim and the convict reside in the same village and, therefore,

the convict ought not to be released on parole, cannot be

accepted in its absolute and inflexible terms. The mere

circumstance that the victim and the convict belong to the same

village, by itself, cannot constitute a valid ground to deny the

benefit of parole. If such a proposition were to be accepted as a

rule of universal application, the very purpose for which the

concept of parole has been evolved in criminal jurisprudence

would stand frustrated.

5.1 Parole is not conceived merely as an act of administrative

indulgence; rather, it is an integral facet of the reformative

approach that underlies modern penology. The object of parole is

to enable a convict to maintain his social and familial ties and to

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLW-410/2026]

facilitate his gradual reintegration into the mainstream of society.

A prisoner, though deprived of his liberty for the commission of an

offence, does not cease to be a member of society. The law does

not contemplate his permanent social isolation. On the contrary,

the philosophy of parole recognises that a convict must be

afforded a meaningful opportunity to reconnect with the social

environment so that he may reflect upon his past conduct and

endeavour to reform himself.

5.2 The apprehension voiced by the prosecution proceeds on the

assumption that the mere presence of the convict in the same

village as the victim would necessarily endanger the latter. Such a

submission, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be

founded more upon conjecture than upon any concrete material

placed on record. The criminal justice system cannot operate on

bald and speculative presumptions. Unless there exists tangible

material to indicate a real and imminent threat, the denial of

parole on such a generalized apprehension would not be justified.

Equally important is the practical dimension of the matter.

5.3 The very purpose of granting parole is to permit the convict

to return to his home environment and experience the

responsibilities and realities of social life. If a convict, during the

period of parole, is not permitted to visit his home or reside within

his native village, the obvious question that would arise is, where

else would he go? The home of a person is naturally the place

where his family resides and where his social roots lie. Directing a

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLW-410/2026]

convict to reside at some unknown or unrelated place during

parole would not only be impractical but would also render the

grant of parole largely illusory. Parole is meant to provide the

convict with an opportunity to step outside the prison walls, to

interact with society and to feel the value of living as a responsible

member of the community. When a convict returns to his village,

observes the ordinary rhythm of life, and reconnects with his

family and surroundings, it often generates a sense of

introspection and responsibility within him. The realisation that he

must rebuild his life and restore his dignity in the eyes of society

frequently acts as a powerful incentive for self-correction. If this

opportunity is denied by prohibiting him from even visiting his

home, the reformative object underlying parole would stand

substantially defeated.

5.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq v. State of

Rajasthan reported in (2017) 15 SCC 55 emphasised that parole

is a measure intended to maintain the continuity of family and

social relations and to enable the prisoner to prepare himself for

eventual reintegration into society.

5.5 Similarly, in Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)

reported in (1978) 4 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Apex Court

underscored the significance of parole in preserving family ties

and highlighted the need for rehabilitation and humane treatment

off the young convicts, directing the State to ensure their dignity

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLW-410/2026]

and provide opportunities for rehabilitation, including parole and

family visits.

6. The philosophy underlying parole is rooted in the reformative

theory of punishment which recognises that the ultimate goal of

the criminal justice system is not merely to punish but also to

reform. In this regard, the words of Mahatma Gandhi are

particularly instructive:-

"Hate the sin and not the sinner."

"Hate the sin and not the sinner is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world... It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. for we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator, and as such the divine powers within us are infinite. To slight a single human being is to slight those divine powers, and thus to harm not only that being but with him the whole world." 1

6.1 The said thought encapsulates the essence of reformative

justice that while the wrongdoing must be condemned, the

individual must not be denied the opportunity to reform himself

and return to society as a better human being. Therefore, while

ensuring that adequate safeguards are put in place to protect the

victim from any form of contact or intimidation, the convict cannot

be denied the benefit of parole merely on the ground that both

parties happen to reside in the same village. To hold otherwise

1 Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi: An Autobiography.

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLW-410/2026]

would amount to defeating the very object of parole and would

reduce a reformative measure of law into an empty formality.

7. At the same time, the concern for the safety, dignity and

peace of mind of the victim cannot be lightly brushed aside. The

criminal justice system must remain sensitive to the rights and

security of the victim. However, such concerns can adequately be

addressed by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions

ensuring that the convict does not approach, contact or in any

manner interact with the victim or her family members during the

period of parole. The law provides sufficient safeguards to ensure

that the liberty granted to the convict does not translate into

harassment or intimidation of the victim.

8. In this background, this Court is inclined to accept the

instant writ petition, which is hereby allowed with certain

conditions. These conditions are imposed with a view to strike a

balance between the legitimate concerns regarding the safety of

the victim and the reformative objective underlying the grant of

parole, so that the convict may avail the opportunity to reintegrate

into society while maintaining public order and tranquility. The

following are the conditions upon the convict during his parole:-

(a) It is ordered that the convict-petitioner shall be released on

second parole of thirty days upon his furnishing a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, on the

usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail,

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12022-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLW-410/2026]

Ajmer shall be at liberty to impose such other adequate and

reasonable conditions as may be necessary to ensure the return of

the petitioner to custody after availing the parole. The period of

parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.

(b) The convict shall not, in any manner whatsoever, attempt to

contact, approach, confront or communicate with the victim or any

of her family members or acquaintances. He shall maintain due

distance and shall ensure that his conduct does not give rise to

any apprehension or discomfort to the victim or her family.

(c) The convict shall mark his presence before the concerned

Police Station once every ten days during the subsistence of the

parole period. The purpose of such appearance shall merely be to

intimate the police authorities of his presence and to assure that

he is maintaining peace and good conduct in the locality. The

Station House Officer shall also ensure that the said requirement

is complied with in its true spirit and the convict is not

unnecessarily detained at the Police Station. The appearance is

not in the nature of a custodial attendance but is only intended to

serve as a formal acknowledgment of his presence and adherence

to the conditions of parole.

                                   (SANDEEP SHAH),J                                                    (FARJAND ALI),J
                                    23-Mamta/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:39:46 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)