The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the imposition of surety requirements for parole grants to female convicts, particularly those unable to arrange financial guarantees, violates the principle of equitable access to judicial relief. In a significant development for prison reform and gender-sensitive jurisprudence, the Court directed the release of a convict on personal bond alone, setting aside a condition that had effectively denied her parole.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Smt. Ghadse Seema Gulab, a female convict aged approximately 32 years, is lodged in the Open Air Camp, Mandore, Jodhpur. She was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and is seeking second parole of 30 days. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Phalodi, on 29.05.2026, granted her parole application subject to the condition that she furnish two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, along with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000. The petitioner challenged this condition, arguing that it rendered her parole practically unattainable due to her inability to arrange sureties.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a woman, currently lodged in an Open Air Camp, indicating low risk of flight
- She was previously granted first parole of 20 days on 10.09.2024, but could not avail it due to inability to furnish the required surety of Rs. 25,000 each
- Her adopted father, Radhakishan S/o Shri Magga Ram, resides at Beldaro Ki Dhani, Ravra Raneri, District Jodhpur, and is willing to stand as the sole responsible person under personal bond
- No history of absconding or violation of prior conditions is recorded
- The petitioner has no financial means to arrange two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each
Procedural History
- 10.09.2024: First parole petition filed; Court granted parole subject to one surety of Rs. 25,000 and personal bond of Rs. 50,000
- 12.12.2024: Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in D.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 650/2024, modified the order to allow release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 only, waiving surety requirement
- 29.05.2026: District Collector, Phalodi, approved second parole of 30 days but reinstated the surety condition
- 19.06.2026: Present writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court seeking exemption from surety requirement
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought exemption from the condition of furnishing two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, requesting release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 only, consistent with the precedent set in the 12.12.2024 order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a female convict, who has demonstrated no risk of absconding and is lodged in an Open Air Camp, can be denied parole solely due to her inability to furnish sureties, when a personal bond has been accepted as sufficient in a prior, identical case by a coordinate bench.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on the coordinate bench’s order dated 12.12.2024 in D.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 650/2024, where the Court had explicitly held that the requirement of sureties was unnecessary for the same petitioner, given her gender, low-risk profile, and lack of financial capacity. Counsel argued that denying parole on this ground amounted to arbitrary discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The personal bond of Rs. 50,000, coupled with the supervision of her adopted father, was sufficient to ensure compliance.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General did not dispute the existence or applicability of the 12.12.2024 order. He conceded that no compelling reason existed to distinguish the present case from the earlier one and could not point to any new risk or circumstance justifying the imposition of sureties.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the 12.12.2024 order in detail and noted that it had already established a binding precedent on the same facts involving the same petitioner. The Court observed that the imposition of sureties in cases involving female convicts, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, creates an artificial barrier to the exercise of a statutory and humanitarian right.
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the record, this first parole petition is allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur is directed to release the petitioner... on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- only."
The Court emphasized that the purpose of sureties is to ensure appearance and compliance, not to impose financial hardship. Where a personal bond is adequate and the convict’s conduct and custodial environment indicate low risk, sureties serve no legitimate penological purpose. The Court further noted that the State’s own administrative body, the District Collector, had already approved the parole, indicating institutional recognition of its appropriateness.
The principle of consistency among coordinate benches was invoked. The Court held that a bench cannot impose a stricter condition on the same petitioner for the same relief when a prior coordinate bench has already ruled otherwise on identical facts, absent a material change in circumstances.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the second parole petition and directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, to release Smt. Ghadse Seema Gulab on second parole of 30 days on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 only. All other conditions imposed by the District Collector’s meeting dated 29.05.2026 remain in force. The requirement of two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each is set aside.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Surety Requirements Cannot Be Used to Deny Parole to Indigent Female Convicts
- Practitioners may now cite this judgment to challenge surety conditions in parole applications for women, especially where financial hardship is established
- Courts must evaluate the necessity of sureties on a case-by-case basis, not as a routine condition
- The personal bond alone, supported by a responsible family member, is sufficient where the convict is in an Open Air Camp or low-security facility
Coordinate Bench Precedents Are Binding in Parole Matters
- A coordinate bench’s order on identical facts involving the same petitioner must be followed unless there is a material change in circumstances
- Denying parole on grounds previously rejected by a coordinate bench constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14
- This principle reinforces judicial consistency and prevents procedural harassment of vulnerable prisoners
Gender Sensitivity Must Inform Parole Decisions
- The Court’s reliance on the petitioner’s gender and socio-economic vulnerability signals a shift toward gender-responsive criminal justice
- Parole policies must account for structural disadvantages faced by women in accessing sureties
- Legal aid organizations should proactively raise this precedent in parole applications for female inmates across Rajasthan
