The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that prolonged incarceration and a favorable social welfare report must outweigh speculative concerns about reoffending when deciding parole eligibility. This ruling reinforces that parole is a right grounded in rehabilitation, not a privilege subject to arbitrary denial based on unproven fears.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Salam @ Chotiya, is a convict serving a sentence since 2019 for a heinous offense. He has spent over 11 years in custody and seeks his first parole of 20 days under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The District Parole Committee rejected his application citing that 27 pending cases are registered against him and that he poses a potential threat to society.
Procedural History
- 2019: Conviction and sentencing by the trial court
- 2025: First application for parole submitted to District Parole Committee
- December 2025: Parole application rejected by District Parole Committee on grounds of pending cases and perceived danger
- January 2026: Criminal Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks immediate release on first parole for 20 days, subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and one solvent surety, arguing that his long incarceration, good conduct, and positive social welfare assessment satisfy all statutory criteria for parole.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the District Parole Committee can deny first parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 solely on the basis of the number of pending cases and unsubstantiated apprehensions of societal threat, without evaluating the convict’s conduct, rehabilitation, or the report of the Social Welfare Department.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, which do not bar parole on account of pending cases. She emphasized that the convict has served over 11 years, has no disciplinary record, and the Social Welfare Department’s report explicitly states that his release poses no threat to the complainant or local community. She cited State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh to argue that parole is a mechanism for reintegration, not punishment extension.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that the sheer number of pending cases - 27 - indicates a pattern of criminality and justifies denial of parole. He argued that the Committee’s discretion must be respected under administrative law principles and that the Court should not interfere unless there is mala fide or arbitrariness. He did not produce any evidence of specific threats or prior violations during incarceration.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, and found no provision that disqualifies a convict based on the pendency of unrelated cases. The Court held that the purpose of parole is to restore familial bonds and facilitate reintegration, not to prolong punitive isolation. The Court noted that the Social Welfare Department’s report, prepared by trained professionals, carries significant weight and was not rebutted by any material evidence.
"The anticipation made by the Committee that the convict-petitioner will be a threat to the society is neither based on some foundation nor there is any material placed in support thereof."
The Court further observed that eligibility under the Rules was not in dispute, and the Committee’s refusal was based on conjecture, not assessment. It distinguished between pending charges and proven risk, emphasizing that the latter requires concrete evidence. The Court rejected the notion that the number of cases alone can override statutory eligibility and positive institutional assessment.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that parole cannot be denied solely on the basis of pending cases or speculative societal threats when statutory eligibility is met and a favorable social welfare report exists. The convict was granted 20 days of first parole subject to a personal bond and surety, with liberty to the Jail Superintendent to impose reasonable conditions for his return.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parole Eligibility Is Not Blocked By Pending Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that pending charges, absent a proven pattern of violence or breach of parole conditions, do not override statutory eligibility under parole rules
- The burden shifts to the State to produce specific, documented evidence of threat - not general allegations
- Social Welfare Department reports must be treated as objective assessments, not mere formalities
Rehabilitation Over Repression
- Courts will prioritize duration of incarceration and conduct in custody over the mere existence of untried cases
- This judgment reinforces that parole is a rehabilitative tool, not a punitive extension
- Legal teams should routinely submit rehabilitation records, family affidavits, and institutional recommendations in parole applications
Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Discretion
- Administrative bodies like Parole Committees are subject to judicial review when their decisions lack evidentiary basis
- Courts will intervene where discretion is exercised on unsubstantiated fears rather than objective criteria
- This sets a precedent for challenging parole denials across other states with similar rules
