On Friday, The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting parole of 15 days to a convict on the ground of want of progeny.

A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha stayed the October 14 order of the High Court. The man was convicted of the offences of rape and kidnapping under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The State of Rajasthan has approached the top court, assailing the order of the High Court, which relied on the judgment of Nand Lal vs State of Rajasthan and had allowed the convict parole for 15 days on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lakh along with two surety bonds of Rs. 1 lakh each.

"In the case in hand, considering the peculiar fact that petition is filed by the young wife of the convict, who is issueless and is desirous of retaining/maintaining her marriage with the convict who is incarcerated for a long period of time; considering that petition is filed for having progeny for purpose of preservation of lineage...this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition and release the convict-petitioner on emergent parole for fifteen days," the High Court had observed.

Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi, appearing for the State, challenged the order on the ground that the High Court had failed to consider that the respondent was convicted of a serious crime under the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act. It was also pointed out that the High Court failed to consider that the case of parole does not fall within the purview of the Parole Rules of 2021. It was further pointed out that the top court had clearly stated that it had reservations about some of the observations in the final judgment passed in Nand Lal v State of Rajasthan.

The petition also claimed that the High Court ignored the Superintendent of Police's report and granted parole solely on the basis of extraneous factors such as religious philosophies, cultural, sociological, and humanitarian aspects, in complete disregard of the law. It was also pointed out that in various cases; the Supreme Court itself has held that there is no fundamental right to parole, furlough, or remission.

Case Title: The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Rahul

Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 10988/2022 

Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/36235/36235_2022_13_54_39809_Order_18-Nov-2022.pdf