[2026:RJ-JP:7803] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition(Parole) No. 1520/2025 Gaurav Urf Bhanu S/o Shri Ranveer @ Randheer, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 60 Feet Road, Dayanagar, Police Station N.e.b. Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) Through His Elder Gautam S/o Ranveer Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 60 Feet Road, Dayanagar, Police Station N.e.b. Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) 301001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee (State Committee), Through Its Chairman, Director General Of Prisons, Rajasthan. 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Alwar. 4. District Magistrate, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 18/02/2026 1. Petitioner though his elder brother has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) seeking permanent parole. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that prayer for permanent parole was declined on the pretext that petitioner has not availed three regular paroles. It has been further contended that petitioner was released on two regular paroles for 20 & 30 days respectively by the Parole Committee. He never [2026:RJ-JP:7803] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1520/2025] misused the liberty of parole and on completion of the parole period, he surrendered before the concerned authority in time. During incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has remained good. Therefore, he prays for release the petitioner on permanent parole. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Suresh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011(3) WLC 643 and Suraj Giri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011 Criminal Law Journal- 1534. 4. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has opposed the writ petition(parole). 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than seven years, the only ground on which his application was rejected is that he has not availed three regular paroles. 7. In the judgments relied upon by counsel for petitioner the facts are akin to the present case, therein also, application for permanent parole was allowed, thus, I deem it proper to allow the present writ petition(parole). 8. Thus, Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) is allowed. The order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Superintendent Central Jail, Alwar is quashed and set aside. The concerned Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole, subject to furnishing his personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Central Jail, Alwar with the stipulation that in case during permanent parole, the petitioner commits any undesirable activity, he can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence and at the same time he [2026:RJ-JP:7803] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1520/2025] shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period and will abide by any other condition imposed by the authority. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Anu /85