Mukesh Kumar alias Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JD:54025-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21397/2026
CNR: RJHC010897372026 | URN: CW / 36412U / 2026

Mukesh Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar [address omitted by NyayVidhan] (Loged In Central Jail Jodhpur). ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s): By Post
For Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the order (hcraj file 206800213972026_3.pdf, 3 pages, uploaded 03.11.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-14 are the Court's own. (2) The cause title is abridged: the petitioner's residential address is omitted. (3) The cause title prints the case as 'D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21397/2026', while paragraph 1 says the letter petition 'has been registered as a D.B. Criminal Writ Petition'; both are kept as printed. (4) The order prints no 'Reportable' mark. (5) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'Loged' (cause title) and 'Rs.50,000/.' (paragraph 2). 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. The instant criminal writ petition has been instituted upon a letter petition sent by the convict prisoner from jail through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur and has been registered as a D.B. Criminal Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. His case for grant of permanent parole was considered by the State Level Parole Committee and vide order dated 30.12.2025 (Annex.1), he has been granted permanent parole subject to the condition of furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-each along with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/.

3. The petitioner had previously approached seeking modification of the surety conditions. Vide order dated 01.04.2026, this Court partly accepted the prayer, modifying the condition of furnishing two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to one surety of Rs. 50,000/- along with a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

4. The present petition has been preferred seeking relaxation/modification of the aforesaid condition on the ground that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the required surety. From the contents of the letter addressed by the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner belongs to a financially weak background and has expressed his inability to arrange surety of the amount stipulated in the order. He has specifically prayed that he may be released on permanent parole on personal bond.

5. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

6. It is not in dispute that the competent authority has already found the petitioner entitled for grant of permanent parole. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioner to be released on permanent parole is not under challenge.

7. The only issue which arises for consideration is with regard to the condition requiring furnishing of surety of Rs.50,000/-.

8. 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.

9. At the same time, the conditions imposed while granting parole are required to ensure that the convict adheres to lawful conduct and remains available to the authorities. However, such conditions must be reasonable and capable of compliance. A condition which is excessively onerous or incapable of being fulfilled by the convict, particularly in view of his socio-economic background, may render the grant of parole ineffective in practice.

10. In the present case, the petitioner, through his letter, has specifically brought on record his financial incapacity and lack of means to furnish surety of the amount stipulated. The said aspect assumes significance, particularly when the State itself, upon consideration of relevant factors, has found the petitioner suitable for permanent parole.

11. In these circumstances, ends of justice would be met by reducing the requirement of surety.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The condition imposed upon the petitioner to furnish a surety of Rs.50,000/- along with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall now furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. All other conditions as stipulated in the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annex.1) shall remain intact and shall be strictly complied with by the petitioner.

13. It is further directed that in case of violation of any of the conditions of parole, it shall be open to the competent authority to take action in accordance with law.

14. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur for immediate compliance.

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