Janak Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2026:RJ-JD:54043-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19601/2026
CNR: RJHC010802312026 | URN: CW / 33341U / 2026

Janak Singh [parentage and age omitted by NyayVidhan], At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur, Through His Nephew [name, parentage, age and address omitted by NyayVidhan] ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Depart Jaipur. (2) The Director General, Jail Jaipur. (3) The District Collector, Jodhpur. (4) The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG.

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the order (hcraj file 206800196012026_3.pdf, 4 pages, uploaded 03.11.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-7 are the Court's own. (2) The cause title is abridged: the petitioner's parentage and age, and the name, parentage, age and address of his nephew, through whom the petition was filed, are omitted, and the respondents' numbers are shown as (1)-(4); the operative paragraph 7 is kept as printed. (3) The order prints no 'Reportable' mark. (4) The petition is numbered as a D.B. Civil Writ Petition, although paragraph 2 calls it a 'criminal parole writ petition'. (5) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'Home Depart' (cause title), the unclosed quotation mark in 'Rules of 1958 (paragraph 3) and 'a number of cases has been registered' (paragraph 6). Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff lines and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 2 November 2026.]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

02/11/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal parole writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-convict being aggrieved of the order dated 24.04.2026 whereby, the Home Department of the State of Rajasthan while relying on the recommendations of the State Level Parole Committee has refused to release the petitioner on permanent parole.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing incarceration in pursuance of the judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities cases), District Kota in Sessions Case No.80/2013. He further submits that the convict-petitioner is undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment and has already undergone 14 years and 16 days of actual incarceration, besides having earned remission of 2 years, 6 months and 4 days. He further submits that the convict-petitioner has also preferred an application seeking grant of permanent parole. He also submits that the convict-petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions for release on parole as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein after referred to as ‘Rules of 1958). He further submits that the convict-petitioner does not incur any ineligibility as per Rule 14 (c) of the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, the State Level Committee committed an error while rejecting the application for release on permanent parole despite the convict-petitioner having actually undergone custody of more than 14 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the conduct of the convict-petitioner in Jail is found to be satisfactory. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that in these circumstances, the application seeking release of convict-petitioner on permanent parole may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the convict-petitioner’s conduct has been taken note of by the State Level Parole Committee and it was found that the convict-petitioner was reportedly found absent during the roll call attendance in Open Air Camp in furtherance of which he was immediately shifted to the jail. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that a number of cases are pending against the convict-petitioner and he is a habitual offender, therefore, the State Level Parole Committee has rightly rejected the application preferred by the convict-petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.

6. It is undisputed fact that the convict-petitioner has undergone incarceration of more than 14 years. It is true that a number of cases has been registered against the convict-petitioner, but Permanent parole, as contemplated under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, is a reformative measure intended to facilitate the social reintegration of a convict who has demonstrated satisfactory conduct and has undergone substantial period of incarceration. The object of granting such benefit is not merely conditional release, but meaningful reintegration into society while maintaining a balance between individual liberty and societal interest. Further, the convict-petitioner has undergone a period of more than 14 years in jail and, therefore, we are of the view that as per the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Rules of 1958, the case of the convict-petitioner for release on permanent parole merits acceptance. Thus, we are of the opinion that the convict-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on permanent parole.

7. In view of the facts noted above, we hereby accept this writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 and direct that the convict-petitioner Janak Singh S/o Shri Dharm Singh shall be released on permanent parole in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners' Release on Parole Rules, 1958, subject to his furnishing the requisite bonds and complying with such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the competent authority for ensuring his continued good conduct and availability whenever required by law.

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J