In a landmark decision, the Rajasthan High Court has mandated that individuals accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012, are prohibited from being granted parole if the proposed location is within the same city or village where the survivor resides.

In its ruling, a division bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni emphasized that in situations where both the accused and the survivor reside in the same city or village, the accused must fulfill their parole obligations in a different location.

''POCSO Accused Prohibited from Parole Near Survivor's Residence'', the bench said.

The court emphasized that it is imperative to prevent any direct encounters between the convict and the survivor, as such interactions could trigger traumatic memories for the survivor, hindering their efforts to move past the harrowing experience.

Sahi Ram, who was convicted for raping a three-year-old girl and is currently serving his sentence in Ajmer central jail, petitioned the High Court after his initial parole application was denied by the District Level Parole Committee, Nagaur. His legal representative contended that the committee had erred in law by rejecting the petitioner's parole application and argued that the grounds for rejection were irrelevant.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) Anil Joshi opposed the petition, highlighting the gravity of the offense. He argued that granting parole would result in the accused coming into close proximity with the survivor, who resides in close proximity to the petitioner convict.

"It will have adverse social and psychological effects on the victim, as the accused is the neighbour of the victim," he argued.

The court granted Sahi Ram his first parole for a duration of 20 days, subject to posting a private bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties of ₹5,000 each. Additionally, a condition was imposed prohibiting him from visiting the survivor's village, even if he has personal ties or family residing there.

The convict's counsel provided an assurance to the court that the convict would refrain from visiting the girl's village. In response, the High Court decreed that the accused would serve his parole term at a location outside the vicinity of the girl's village.