Parole Not a Privilege of the Solvent: Raj HC Waives Surety

Parole Cannot Be a Privilege of the Solvent: Rajasthan High Court Waives Sureties for Indigent Prisoner, Issues Guidelines

Published: 8 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench at Jodhpur held that insisting on sureties from a prisoner whose indigence is established makes sanctioned parole illusory and is arbitrary under Articles 14 and 21 (paras 9, 11, 15, 19). Acting on a letter from a life convict who could not take up his fourth parole for want of two sureties, it ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 and issued six guidelines for parole committees (paras 21-23).

Key holdings

Rule 4 of the 2021 Parole Rules permits, but does not mandate, surety bonds; release on a personal bond alone is not barred (paras 10, 12).

Insisting on sureties from a prisoner known to be indigent is a constructive denial of sanctioned parole (paras 11, 20).

Once sureties were waived earlier, committees must dispense with them on later paroles unless they record reasons to believe the prisoner can now furnish them (para 22).

Personal bonds should be commensurate with the prisoner’s economic status, and surety waivers must be reported to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority database (para 22).

Brief Facts

Khartaram, serving life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC, sent an undated letter that the High Court converted into a writ petition (paras 1, 3). On three earlier occasions, in 2019, 2020 and 2022, Division Benches had waived the surety condition and he was released on parole on a personal bond alone (paras 3, 12). On 29.09.2025 the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali, sanctioned a fourth parole of 40 days but again required two sureties of ₹25,000 each with a personal bond of ₹50,000 (para 3). The State sought dismissal, pointing out that he had conceded his inability to furnish sureties; a police report recorded that his social and economic condition was not good (para 4).

Court's Findings

The Bench read the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 as making parole a reformative and humanitarian measure whose conditions must conform to Articles 14 and 21 (paras 6-8). Rule 4 lets the District Committee impose conditions, including a personal bond or security, but the power is directory: it neither requires sureties in every case nor bars release on a personal bond alone (paras 10, 12). Sureties are only a means to secure surrender; where indigence is established and undisputed, insisting on them amounts to constructive denial of parole despite its formal grant (para 11). Adopting the Gujarat High Court Full Bench view in Natia Jiria, the Court held that where nothing contradicts a prisoner’s plea of poverty, the authority is obliged to release him on a personal bond (paras 13-15). Re-imposing sureties despite three earlier judicial waivers showed a mechanical approach, left sanctioned parole unavailable and offended Articles 14 and 21 (paras 15, 20). Referring to Sunil Batra, Mohinder Singh and Moti Ram, it held such insistence legally unsustainable and constitutionally impermissible; release on a personal bond in such cases is constitutional compliance, not charity (paras 17-19).

Legal Principle

Once a parole committee sanctions parole, its discretion to impose conditions must be used to make release possible. Where a prisoner’s indigence and inability to furnish sureties are established, insisting on sureties is arbitrary, renders parole illusory and violates Articles 14 and 21; release should be on a personal bond (paras 10-11, 19).

Precedents Relied Upon

Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat 1984 (1) 25 Guj LR 464
Followed Discussed at ¶ 13, 14, 15
Full Bench, Gujarat High Court: where there is no material to disbelieve a prisoner’s plea of poverty, the sanctioning authority is obliged to release him on his personal bond; even a nominal surety can bar the indigent, and poverty is no crime.
Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 295/2021) Order dated 28.07.2021 (Rajasthan High Court)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16, 22
The surety condition was waived for a poor convict and directions were issued for a computerised database of convicts and for informing eligible prisoners of their right to be considered for parole; guideline (vi) links surety waivers to that database.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17
Prisoners do not shed their fundamental rights at the prison gate, save to the extent lawfully curtailed by procedure established by law.

View all precedents (5)

State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18
Parole serves the twin objectives of maintaining family and social ties and facilitating rehabilitation; executive discretion must be exercised rationally and humanely.
Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18
Mechanical insistence on sureties from indigent persons defeats access to justice and violates equality before law.

Parole Cannot Be a Privilege of the Solvent: Rajasthan High Court Waives Sureties for Indigent Prisoner, Issues Guidelines

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused

Rajasthan High Court Restores LIC Employee’s Full Suspension Pay After Acquittal