[2026:RJ-JP:18637-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 489/2026 Gyanendra Shukla S/o Shri Kamal Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mirzapur @ Todhakpur, Police Station Lalganj, District Raibareli (U.p.) (At Present In Central Jail, Bikaner) Through His Elder Brother Raghavendra Kumar S/o Shri Kamal Kumar, Aged About 38 Years R/o Mirzapur @ Todhakpur, Police Station Lalganj, District Raibareli (U.p.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The District Parole Advisory, Through Its Chairman, District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Agarwal & Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 01/05/2026 1. This Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) has been filed by the accused-petitioner with the prayer that the order/recommendation of the Parole Advisory Committee dated 28.11.2025 qua the petitioner be set aside and he be released on second regular parole for a period of thirty days. 2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner was released on first regular parole and after availing the aforesaid parole, he surrendered himself before [2026:RJ-JP:18637-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-489/2026] concerned jail authorities within stipulated time and has not misused the liberty of parole granted to him by this Court. Counsel further submits that jail conduct of the accused-petitioner has been found satisfactory and rejection of his parole application by the District Parole Advisory Committee is without application of mind. 3. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the present criminal writ petition (parole) and it is contended that the competent authority has rightly rejected the application filed by the accused-petitioner for grant of second regular parole. Further, report of the Probation officer as well as the report of Superintendent of Police, Raebareli is not in favour of the petitioner. 4. We have considered the contentions advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 reads as under: “9. Parole period - A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, 2 [one-fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back. and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, [2026:RJ-JP:18637-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-489/2026] commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence. 1 [Provided the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.] “ 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view that the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on second regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1958 for the reasons; his jail conduct is satisfactory and no documentary evidence in support of adverse police report has been placed on record. Hence, in these facts and circumstances as well as the material available before us, we deem it just and proper to allow the present writ petition (parole) and set aside the order/recommendations dated 28.11.2025 qua the present accused-petitioner. 7. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) is accordingly allowed. The order/recommendation of the Parole Advisory Committee dated 28.11.2025 qua the present accused-petitioner is quashed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on second regular parole for a period of thirty days on furnishing of his personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like [2026:RJ-JP:18637-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-489/2026] amount each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authorities on the expiry of the parole period and shall maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period. 8. In case of his failure to surrender by stipulated date, the Jail Authorities shall proceed in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner by fax today itself for necessary compliance. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Anu /43