[2025:RJ-JP:32663-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 851/2025 Mohammad Hussain S/o Ayub Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kapoorapur, Manimo Station, Tehsil Kannauj, District Kan- nauj (U.p.) At Present Tenant Vakil Ka Makan Man Vihar C-Lal Bagh, Tonk Road Jaipur (Raj.) ( At Present In Special Central Jail Shyalawas Dausa ) Through His Brother Hassan Khan S/o Ayub Khan Aged About 23 Years, R/o 10/2002, Maharaj Agrasen Na- gar, Lal Bagh Beelwa Kalan Jaipur (Raj.) 302022 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Secretariat Jaipur. 2. The District Magistrate, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent Special Central Jail, Shyalawas Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 20/08/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking directions to release the petitioner on second regular parole only on furnishing of personal bond of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC vide judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Session Case No. 82/2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:32663-DB] (2 of 2) [CRLW-851/2025] 3. The petitioner was earlier released on parole for twenty days on furnishing of two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and personal bond. On being eligible the petitioner applied for second parole and the parole was allowed vide order dated 02.06.2025 subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the financial position of the petitioner is weak and cannot furnish surety bond. 5. On a pin pointed query, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that for availing the first parole petitioner had furnished solvent surety. 6. It is neither pleaded nor argued that the financial position of family of the petitioner has deteriorated after availing first parole. Without any change in circumstances the basis for prayer that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish solvent surety does not exist. 7. In the reply filed as also in the financial status report, the officer concerned has not even mentioned the fact that the petitioner had earlier availed parole by furnishing sureties and a personal bond. The report and the reply filed are much to be desired. 8. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 9. The criminal writ petition (parole) is dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/48