The Rajasthan High Court held that bond conditions must reflect a prisoner’s financial capacity, stressing that poverty cannot justify continued incarceration. The court criticised authorities for mechanically insisting on sureties from indigent prisoners seeking parole as unjust and unfair.
RAJASTHAN: The Rajasthan High Court has determined that the conditions of a bond should take into account the financial circumstances of the prisoner.
In an order issued, the court stated that ‘poverty is not a crime‘ and expressed strong disapproval of the mechanical approach taken by authorities in requiring sureties from impoverished prisoners seeking release on parole.
A bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Farjand Ali issued new guidelines for future parole grants, treating a letter from Khartaram serving a life sentence for murder in Jodhpur Central Jail since 2014 as a writ petition.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rules on Default Bail: New Guidelines for Accused in Pending Investigations
On September 29, 2025, the District Parole Committee approved Khartaram’s release on regular parole for the fourth time, lasting 40 days. However, it mandated the submission of two sureties of Rs 25,000 each.
Unable to meet this requirement and lacking the means for legal assistance, Khartaram appealed to the high court via a postcard for relief.
This was not Khartaram’s first plea to the court with similar concerns. During his three previous parole grants, the court had intervened to eliminate the surety condition, allowing his release on personal bonds. This time, the court took issue with the reimposition of the same stipulation.
In its judgment the court not only granted relief to the petitioner with a personal bond of Rs 50,000 but also established six guidelines to ensure that parole conditions do not discriminate against economically disadvantaged prisoners.
Guidelines of the court:
- The personal bond amount for parole should be set according to the prisoner’s financial status and should not be excessive, prohibitive, or oppressive.
- It noted that a surety is usually required for the first parole but stated that if the parole committee finds, after proper inquiry, that the prisoner is indigent and unable to provide a surety, it should exercise discretion to waive this requirement even for the first parole.
- The bench also held that if a surety condition had been imposed previously and the prisoner requests a waiver, the committee must grant it upon verifying the prisoner’s financial incapacity.
- If a prisoner has previously been released on parole without a surety by the committee or a court, the surety requirement should also be waived for future paroles, unless there is documentation showing an improvement in the prisoner’s financial condition.
- these guidelines would apply equally to paroles granted on humanitarian grounds as special or relaxed cases.
- Once a waiver of the surety is granted, it must be recorded in a centralized database, and subsequent parole applications should be processed through legal-aid services in collaboration with the State.
The bench remarked,
“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 one is akin to denying parole. Parole cannot be a privilege available only to those with money,”
The court instructed the relevant authorities to ensure that in future cases, discretion under the rules, in accordance with the guidelines mentioned, is applied in a humane, rational, and constitutionally compliant manner.