The Rajasthan High Court has held that the imposition of parole bond conditions must reflect the financial condition of prisoners and not become a tool of discrimination. In a significant ruling passed on January 6, a division bench of Justices Arun Monga and Farjand Ali declared that demanding sureties from poor prisoners who cannot afford them is effectively denying parole and goes against the reformative spirit of the law.
The court passed this order while granting relief to Khartaram, a life convict lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail since 2014. Khartaram, who had previously been granted parole thrice, had been released each time on a personal bond after court intervention. When he was granted parole again on September 29, 2025, the District Parole Committee once more imposed a condition requiring two sureties of ₹25,000 each — a condition Khartaram could not meet due to his indigence. Unable to afford legal help, he sent a postcard to the High Court seeking assistance, which the bench treated as a writ petition.
The court expressed strong displeasure over the authorities’ repeated imposition of surety conditions, terming it “institutional apathy”. It observed:
“Parole is a reformative right; it cannot be turned into a means of discrimination between the rich and the poor. If a prisoner is poor and cannot furnish a surety, demanding a surety from him is similar to refusing parole. Parole cannot be a privilege reserved only for those with money.”
Calling poverty “not a crime”, the bench criticized the mechanical approach adopted by authorities while fixing conditions for parole.
Along with granting Khartaram parole again on a personal bond of ₹50,000, the court issued six binding guidelines applicable across Rajasthan:
- Parole bond amounts must reflect the prisoner’s economic condition, and should not be excessive, prohibitive, or oppressive.
- Surety can be required for the first parole, but if the prisoner is found indigent after proper inquiry, the committee must exercise discretion and waive the surety even for the first instance.
- In subsequent paroles, if a prisoner was earlier released without surety by court or committee and no change in financial status is recorded, the requirement of surety must be waived.
- If a prisoner requests waiver after previously complying with a surety condition, and is found financially incapable, the committee must grant waiver.
- These principles will also apply to parole granted on humanitarian grounds, including in relaxed or special categories.
- All waivers must be centrally recorded, and future parole requests should be processed through legal-aid channels under state coordination.
The court emphasized that parole authorities must exercise their discretion under the law in a humane, rational, and constitutionally compliant manner.
