[2026:RJ-JP:21343-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Emergent Parole) No. 570/2026 Asfaq S/o Shri Abdul Aziz, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Nagouri Mohalla Satmarg Near Ramkaran School Dausa (Raj.), (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur (Raj.) Through His Son - Farookh Khan Son Of Shri Asfaq Aged About 27 Years R/o Lalsot Road Opposite Purana Cinema Hall Dausa Dist. Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (Home), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj). 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tekchand Swami, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv., and Ms. Neha Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/05/2026 1. This criminal writ petition is preferred for quashing the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the respondents whereby, the petitioner has been denied emergent parole as also a direction to them to release him on emergent parole of 15 days. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner is undergoing sentence upon his conviction by the designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide judgment dated 28.02.2004 under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA Act read with Section 120B of IPC, Section [2026:RJ-JP:21343-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-570/2026] 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 5, 6(1) of TADA Act, Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, Sections 307, 326, 324, 436 of IPC, Section 3, 4 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 9-B of Explosive Act, Section 150-151 of Railways Act and Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. His application seeking emergent on account of illness of his wife came be rejected by the respondents on 26.02.2026 on account that on an earlier occasion, he was extended this benefit from 28.07.2025 to 11.08.2025. 3. Inviting attention of this Court towards the certificate dated 03.12.2025 issued by the Medical Superintendent, State Cancer Institute, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his wife is patient of Ca Colon Stage IV, the advanced disease and is under regular medical treatment and therefore, he is entitled for 15 days emergent parole. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned dated 26.02.2026 be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to release him on emergent parole of 15 days. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, would submit that taking into consideration the illness of his wife, on an earlier occasion, he was extended benefit of emergent parole for a period of 15 days from 28.07.2025 to 11.08.2025. He further submits that in view of the disease his wife is suffering, she requires constant medical attention and petitioner has four grown up sons to take care of that. Relying upon the co- ordinate Bench judgment of this Court dated 21.04.2026 in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.926/2026: Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. involving identical controversy, he would [2026:RJ-JP:21343-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-570/2026] contend that a prisoner cannot be extended emergent parole to supervise medical treatment of a relative as a matter of routine. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and considered. 6. As per the certificate dated 03.12.2025 relied upon by the petitioner claiming emergent parole, wife of the petitioner is under regular treatment in Medical Oncology Department, State Cancer Institute, Jaipur. Undisputedly, he has four grown up sons who are capable of taking care of regular treatment of the wife of the petitioner-their mother. The petitioner is suffering sentence, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC read with provisions of TADA Act and the Explosives Act. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a case of Jagdish (supra), has held as under: "It is a fact that the petitioner’s daughter is suffering from psychiatric disorder and is being extended the treatment at AIIMS, Jodhpur. For the purpose, there is no male member in the family, who can take care of the treatment of the petitioner’s daughter. At the same time, the convict-petitioner cannot be allowed to file emergent parole every second month or at a regular interval, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the convict petitioner is directed to take the services of District Legal Service Authority at Sirohi. The District Legal Service Authority, Sirohi is directed to make suitable arrangement for treatment of the petitioner’s daughter at Sirohi or at appropriate centre." 7. In the aforesaid case, instead of extending the petitioner the benefit of emergent parole to take care of regular treatment of his daughter, in view of the fact that there was no male member in the family, the petitioner was directed to resort to the services of concerned District Legal Services Authority. However, in the instant case, undisputedly, the petitioner has four grown up sons to take care of regular treatment of his wife. [2026:RJ-JP:21343-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-570/2026] 8. In the case of Prasannadeep @ Parra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.463/2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 03.08.2022, declined the benefit of emergent parole to the petitioner sought on the ground of illness of his mother on the premise that his brother was there to look after the mother. 9. In the case of Mubin Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.5905/2009, another co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 03.08.2009, declined the benefit of emergent parole to the petitioner to look after his mother's surgery on the ground that his father and two younger brothers were available to take her care. 10. On that premise, we find no merit in the criminal writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 92/MADAN