Victim And Convict Belonging To Same Village Not By Itself Ground To Deny Parole: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that denying the benefit of parole to a convict merely because he lives in the same village and close proximity to that of the victim and thus presented potential threat, was based on conjectures, and frustrated the objective of parole. The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that when a convict returned home and...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that denying the benefit of parole to a convict merely because he lives in the same village and close proximity to that of the victim and thus presented potential threat, was based on conjectures, and frustrated the objective of parole.
The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that when a convict returned home and reconnected with his family, it generated a sense of introspection and responsibility within him to rebuild his life and restore his dignity, which acted as a powerful incentive for self-correction.
The application for parole submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that since the victim and convict resided in the same village and in close proximity, release on parole posed a threat to the safety and security of the victim and her family members.
The Court held that such apprehension could not be accepted in its absolute and inflexible terms, such that it constituted a ground to deny benefit of parole.
“The criminal justice system cannot operate on bald and speculative presumptions. Unless there exists tangible material to indicate a real and imminent threat, the denial of parole on such a generalized apprehension would not be justified…If a convict, during the period of parole, is not permitted to visit his home or reside within his native village, the obvious question that would arise is, where else would he go?”
While underscoring the reformative objective of the jurisprudence of parole, the Court stated that directing the convict to reside at some unknown place during parole was impractical and rendered the grant of parole illusory.
It was observed that while ensuring adequate safeguards for the victim and stringent conditions on the convict, any form of contact or intimidation could be prevented.
In this light, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on parole with certain conditions, which, as the Court suggested, struck a balance between the legitimate concerned regarding safety of the victim and the reformative objective underlying parole.
Title: Narayan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 103