[2025:RJ-JP:32216-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1062/2025 Mohansingh S/o Pyare Singh, R/o Pathena, Police Station Khedli Mode, District Bharatpur - Presently Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur - Through His Nephew Dinesh Singh S/o Shri Parsuram Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Pathena, District Bharatpur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Bharatpur. 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal 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 Dated:-18.08.2025 Per: BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J 1. The convict-prisoner has preferred this petition for release on fifteen days’ emergent parole on the ground of death of his son Dharmendra Singh, who expired on 10.07.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the convict-prisoner has been sentenced to imprisonment for life pursuant to the order of conviction dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Weir, District-Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302, 307, 149, 147 & 148 IPC. It is stated that the convict-prisoner along with his four sons namely Arvind, Ravindra, [2025:RJ-JP:32216-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLW-1062/2025] Satyendra and Jitendra Singh are languishing in jail. Therefore, the application for emergent parole of fifteen days was filed as one of his sons Dharmendra had expired on 10.07.2025, so as to enable him to perform his last rites. 3. Emergent parole application filed by the convict-prisoner was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2025. Petitioner challenged order by filing a D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.1004/2025, which was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the parole application afresh. 4. It is alleged that after the order passed by this Court, the parole application was considered afresh, but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2025, without considering that son of petitioner expired and the presence of the convict-prisoner was required to perform the last rituals. 5. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for release of convict-prisoner on emergent parole and submitted that the District Magistrate, has rightly passed the order dated 25.07.2025 after considering the report of the Superintendent of Police, and that the reasons assigned are sufficient. Hence, there is no scope of interference in the order. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner had filed the application for emergent parole due to the death of his son Dharmendra on 10.07.2025 for performing the last rites. The Collector & District Magistrate has passed a detailed and reasoned impugned order on 25.07.2025, after considering the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, which clearly did not recommend the grant of parole. [2025:RJ-JP:32216-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLW-1062/2025] The order also reveals that the petitioner was already granted parole on 11.07.2025 for attending the funeral and performing the last rites of his son under police custody. 8. Rules of 2021 provide for emergent parole in the case of death of a close relative, and the grant of emergent parole is regulated by Rule 11. Rule 11(1) of the Rules 2021 is reproduced hereunder: - 11. Emergent cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contain in rule 5,6, and 10, in emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration, such as,- (i) critical condition on account of illness of any close relative i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or un-married sister; (ii) death of any such close relative; (iii) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity; (iv) Marriage of a Prisoner, his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sister in case his/her parents are not alive; and (v) delivery of Prisoners wife,a prisoner, may be released on parole for a period not exceeding seven days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not exceeding fifteen days by the Inspector General of Prisons or District Magistrate on such terms and conditions as they may, consider necessary to impose for the security of the prisoner including a guarantee for his return to the Jail, acceptance or execution whereof would be a condition precedent to the release of such a prisoner on parole. [2025:RJ-JP:32216-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLW-1062/2025] 9. The use of the expression “may be released” in Rule 11(1) indicates the absence of an absolute right. Thus, the grant of release on emergent parole is discretionary remedy circumscribed by Rule 11. The District Magistrate has been specifically entrusted with this responsibility under the Rules. In the present case, the District Magistrate, Bharatpur has called the report from the Superintendent of Police, who in turn got an enquiry report from the SHO, Police Station-Kherli Mod, and the circle officer. A detailed report was submitted by the superintendent of police on 16.07.2025, and the Learned District Magistrate, after considering the facts of the case and the report, passed a speaking and a reasoned order and refused to grant the parole to the petitioner. The District Magistrate, while rejecting the application for parole, has observed that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence of triple murder. It has further been noted that since the family members of the deceased are residing in the same village as of the petitioner, there exists a grave likelihood of a serious untoward incident occurring in the event of the petitioner being released on parole and permitted to visit the village and there is threat to his life as well. The order passed by the competent authority is well-reasoned, having been rendered after due application of mind and upon consideration of the prevailing circumstances. 10. It is a settled position of law that the scope of judicial review is essentially limited to examining whether the executive decision is arbitrary, malafide, procedurally unfair, or otherwise in violation of the statutory framework. While reviewing such an order, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent [2025:RJ-JP:32216-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLW-1062/2025] authority unless the decision is found to be perverse, unreasonable, or arbitrary. 11. Upon examining the order dated 25.07.2025, we find that the order does not suffer from any such infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly when the petitioner had already availed parole for the purpose of attending the funeral of his son and the last rites have been performed by his relative and mother, as more than one month has passed since his death. 12. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Bharatpur. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) stands dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Sunita/33 Reportable-Yes or No [2025:RJ-JP:32216-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLW-1062/2025]