Pratapram vs State Of Rajasthan … on 12 March, 2026

    0
    33
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

    Pratapram vs State Of Rajasthan … on 12 March, 2026

    Author: Farjand Ali

    Bench: Farjand Ali

    [2026:RJ-JD:12272-DB]
    
            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                             JODHPUR
                   D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 533/2026
    
    Pratapram S/o Shri Sadaram, Aged About 37 Years, At Present
    Lodged In Open Air Camp Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj) Through His
    Mother Smt Lasi W/o Shri Sadaram, Aged 73 Years, R/o
    Meghwalo Ka Bass, Nana, Police Station Nana, Tehsil Bali,
    District Pali (Raj)
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                           Versus
    1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
             Of Home, Govt Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
    2.       The District Collector And District Magistrate, Pali (Raj)
    3.       The Dy Superintendent, District Jail, Sirohi Raj
                                                                        ----Respondents
    
    
    For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Vishal Singh Bhati
    For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
                                       assisted by Mr. K.S. Kumawat
    
    
    
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

    Order

    SPONSORED

    12/03/2026

    1. The present criminal writ petition has been instituted by the

    petitioner-convict Pratapram S/o Shri Sada Ram, resident of

    Village Mogrwal, Police Station Nana, Tehsil Bali, District Pali

    (Rajasthan).

    2. The petitioner was tried in Sessions Case No. 10/2015

    (08/2015) and was convicted for the offences punishable under

    Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned

    Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, vide judgment

    dated 01.07.2017, whereby he was sentenced to undergo

    (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:42:01 PM)
    (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:35:57 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:12272-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-533/2026]

    imprisonment for life. The petitioner is presently undergoing the

    said sentence and is confined in Open Air Camp, Sirohi, District

    Sirohi. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of

    sentence dated 01.07.2017, the petitioner preferred a criminal

    appeal before this Court being D.B. Criminal Appeal

    No.1073/2017, which is presently pending adjudication and awaits

    final consideration.

    2.2. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier availed regular

    parole for a period of 40 days and thereafter completed more than

    eleven months of incarceration subsequent to the said parole

    period. In terms of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on

    Parole) Rules, 2021, such completion of the intervening period

    rendered the petitioner eligible for consideration of regular parole

    for 40 days. Thus, the petitioner submitted an application before

    the competent authority seeking the said benefit.

    2.3. The petitioner’s case was thereafter placed before the

    District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali which examined the

    matter in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.

    Upon consideration, the competent authority, namely the District

    Magistrate, Pali, vide order dated 17.01.2026, approved the grant

    of parole. However, the said approval was made conditional upon

    the petitioner furnishing two sound and solvent surety bonds of

    ₹25,000/- each along with a personal bond of ₹50,000/-.

    2.4. The petitioner submits that despite the sanction of parole, he

    has been unable to avail the benefit thereof due to his acute

    financial incapacity to furnish the requisite surety bonds. It is

    (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:42:01 PM)
    (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:35:57 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:12272-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-533/2026]

    asserted that the petitioner belongs to a financially indigent

    background, and the economic circumstances of his family render

    it practically impossible for him to procure solvent sureties in the

    amounts stipulated in the order dated 17.01.2026.

    2.5. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached

    this Court by way of the present criminal writ petition under

    Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate

    directions for waiver or relaxation of the condition relating to

    furnishing surety bonds, and praying that he may be permitted to

    avail the benefit of parole upon furnishing a personal bond alone.

    3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

    contended that the petitioner’s entitlement to parole already

    stands recognised by the competent authority, and the sole

    impediment in the actual execution of the order arises from the

    onerous condition requiring production of solvent sureties. It is

    urged that the petitioner’s continued incarceration despite the

    sanction of parole is solely attributable to his inability to comply

    with a condition that is financially burdensome and practically

    insurmountable for a person of his modest means.

    3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

    the petitioner and learned AAG as well as perused the material

    available on record.

    3.1. Upon consideration of the matter, it becomes evident that

    the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to parole have

    already been duly acknowledged by the competent authority.

    Consequently, the scope of adjudication in the present

    (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:42:01 PM)
    (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:35:57 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:12272-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-533/2026]

    proceedings stands confined to the limited question as to whether

    the condition requiring furnishing of surety bonds deserves to be

    sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

    3.2. It is noteworthy that although the competent authority

    sanctioned the petitioner’s parole, the same has remained

    unavailed for a considerable duration, solely on account of the

    petitioner’s inability to arrange the requisite sureties. Such

    prolonged non-availment unmistakably indicates that the

    petitioner lacks the financial wherewithal necessary to comply with

    the condition imposed.

    3.3. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence

    that conditions attached to the grant of bail or parole must be

    reasonable, equitable and capable of practical compliance. The

    imposition of conditions which are beyond the financial capacity of

    the concerned individual effectively nullifies the relief granted and

    reduces the order to a mere formality devoid of real substance.

    3.4. In the present case, the assertion made by the petitioner

    regarding his financial hardship appears credible. The record

    reflects that the petitioner belongs to an economically modest

    background and that his family members are not in a position to

    furnish solvent sureties of the magnitude stipulated in the

    impugned order. The Court is therefore satisfied that the

    petitioner’s inability to furnish the surety bonds arises not out of

    reluctance but from genuine economic constraints.

    3.5. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and

    bearing in mind the reformative philosophy underlying the parole

    (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:42:01 PM)
    (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:35:57 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:12272-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-533/2026]

    system, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of

    justice would be adequately served by relaxing the condition

    relating to surety bonds. Grant of parole serves an important

    rehabilitative purpose by enabling a convict to maintain familial

    and social ties, thereby facilitating gradual reintegration into

    society.

    4. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case, and on

    humanitarian as well as reformative considerations, the

    requirement imposed by the competent authority in its order

    dated 17.01.2026, directing the petitioner to furnish two sureties,

    is hereby relaxed.

    4.1. It is therefore directed that the petitioner Pratapram S/o

    Sadaram shall be released on parole upon furnishing a personal

    bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of the

    Superintendent of the concerned jail, without insisting upon the

    production of sureties. All other conditions governing the grant of

    parole shall remain unaffected and binding upon the petitioner. It

    is further clarified that the period of parole shall commence from

    the date of the petitioner’s actual release from custody.

    5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition

    stands allowed. A copy of this order shall be forwarded forthwith

    to the concerned jail authorities for immediate compliance in

    accordance with law.

                                        (SANDEEP SHAH),J                                                   (FARJAND ALI),J
                                        30-Mamta/-
    
    
    
    
                                                                (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 03:42:01 PM)
                                                               (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:35:57 PM)
    
    
    
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here