Bond conditions should be fixed keeping in mind prisoner's financial status: Rajasthan HC

Jodhpur, Jan 8 (PTI) The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the conditions of a bond should be determined after considering the financial status of the prisoner.

In an order passed on Tuesday, the court said poverty is not a crime, while expressing strong displeasure over the mechanical attitude of authorities in demanding sureties from poor prisoners for release on parole.

A bench of Justices Arun Monga and Farjand Ali issued new guidelines for granting parole in the future, while treating a letter from Khartaram, who is serving a life term in a murder case in the Jodhpur Central Jail since 2014, as a writ petition.

On September 29, 2025, the District Parole Committee ordered Khartaram's release for the fourth time on regular parole for 40 days. However, it imposed a condition, requiring the submission of two sureties of Rs 25,000 each. As Khartaram could not fulfil the condition and was also unable to afford legal intervention, he appealed to the high court for relief through a postcard.

This was not the first time that Khartaram approached the court with a similar plea. On the three previous occasions when he was granted parole, the court had intervened and done away with the condition of surety, while ordering the release of the petitioner on personal bonds. This time, the court took offence over the imposition of the same condition on him again.

"This reflects the institutional apathy (systemic indifference) of the authorities. 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," the bench said.

The court, in its judgment reserved on December 16, 2025 and pronounced on January 6, not only granted relief to the petitioner on a personal bond of Rs 50,000, but also issued six guidelines applicable across the state from now on to ensure that parole conditions do not discriminate against poor prisoners.

The court held that the personal bond amount for parole must be fixed according to the prisoner's economic condition and should not be excessive, prohibitive or oppressive. It pointed out that a surety is ordinarily required for the first parole, but said if the parole committee finds, after due inquiry, that the prisoner is indigent and unable to furnish surety, it must exercise discretion to waive the surety even for the first parole.

The bench held that if a surety condition was imposed earlier and the prisoner seeks waiver, the committee must waive it on being satisfied that the prisoner is poor and incapable of arranging a surety.

The fourth guideline laid down by the court said where a prisoner was earlier released on parole without a surety by the committee or a court, the surety requirement must also be dispensed with for subsequent paroles, unless there is a recorded reason showing improved financial capacity.

The court said these guidelines will equally apply to parole granted on humanitarian grounds as a special or relaxed case and that once a surety waiver is granted, it must be recorded in a centralised database and future parole applications should be processed through legal-aid services with State coordination.

The court said the authorities concerned are required to ensure that in future cases, the discretion under the rules, read with the aforesaid guidelines, is exercised in a humane, rational and constitutionally-compliant manner. PTI COR RC