[2026:RJ-JP:24848-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1332/2025 URN: CRLW / 4275U / 2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Iswar Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Kalwa, Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bikaner) Through His Cousin Brother- Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Singh, Age About 40 Years, R/o Village Kalwa, Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur. 2. The State Parole Committee, Through Joint Secretary Department Of Home, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent Of Central Jail, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG and Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 03/07/2026 1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of State Level Parole Advisory Committee meeting dated 7.7.2023, the order of which was issued on 8.8.2023, whereby the petitioner has been denied permanent parole on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and in the event he is released on parole, he may again be indulged in criminal activities. [2026:RJ-JP:24848-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1332/2025] 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He further submits that petitioner has served more than 21 years and 3 months and 4 days of sentence and his jail conduct is satisfactory. He further submits that the petitioner applied for permanent parole, but in the meeting of the parole advisory committee held on 7.7.2023, the order of which has been issued on 8.8.2023, the petitioner’s application for permanent parole has been rejected in a mechanical manner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is nothing on record to show that during the parole period, the petitioner engaged himself in any criminal activity. He has prayed to allow the petition, to quash and set-aside the proceedings of the Parole Advisory Committee dated 7.7.2023, pursuant thereto the order issued on 8.8.2023, and to release the petitioner on permanent parole. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 18.1.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 757/2020 titled as Balveer Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that twice the petitioner jumped from parole, for which FIRs were registered against him. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and if he is [2026:RJ-JP:24848-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1332/2025] released on bail, there is every likelihood that the petitioner may indulge in criminal activities. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balveer (supra) observed as under: “Needless to say that in case the petitioner engages himself in any untoward incident during permanent parole, same can be withdraw and the petitioner can be called upon to serve his remaining sentence. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner has already served more than 18 years, 3 months and 14 days sentence and his conduct in jail is satisfactory and more particularly in view of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958, we deem it just and proper to allow the present petition for parole and set aside the impugned order dated 27.1.2020 qua petitioner, whereby permanent parole was refused to him.” 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the jail conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the year 2020; the convict petitioner has already served more than 21 years, 3 months and 4 days of sentence; there is no complaint about general conduct of the petitioner in relation to other co-petitioners and staff of the prison; and no material has been placed on record to disclose that petitioner’s release on permanent parole shall cause any injury societal fabric and its normal peace, we are inclined to allow this petition. [2026:RJ-JP:24848-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1332/2025] 9. Accordingly the petition is allowed, the proceedings of the Parole Advisory Committee dated 7.7.2023, pursuant thereto the order issued on 8.8.2023 qua petitioner stand quashed and set aside and concerned Authority is directed to release the convict-petitioner on permanent parole, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate 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 shall also maintain peace and tranquility during the parole period and will abide by any other condition imposed by the authority. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J 57/DK