Supreme Court stays HC order granting parole to POCSO convict to beget a child with wife

The Supreme Court in the case The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Rahul observed and has stayed the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting parole of 15 days to a convict on the ground for want of progeny.
The bench comprising of Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice P. S. Narasimha observed and has issued a notice on a petition filled by the State of Rajasthan where the State has submitted that grant of parole is not a matter of fundamental right.
In the present case, the State of Rajasthan has approached the Supreme court assailing the order of the High Court, wherein, the High Court had relied on the judgment in the case Nand Lal vs State of Rajasthan and has allowed the convict parole for 15 days on furnishing a personal bond on the sum of Rs. 2 lakh which is along with two surety bonds of Rs. 1 lakh each.
The order has been challenged by the court on the ground that the High Court had failed to consider that the Respondent was convicted for a serious crime under Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act. Moreover, it was also being pointed out that the High Court failed to consider that the case of parole does not fall within the purview of Parole Rules of 2021. Further, it has been pointed out that the Supreme Court had clearly stated that they had reservations on some of the observations in the final judgment passed in the case Nand Lal v State of Rajasthan. It has also been stated in the plea filled that it has been failed by High Court while considering the report of the Superintendent of Police and that the High Court granted parole solely on the ground of extraneous factors of religious philosophies, sociological, cultural and humanitarian aspects, and in complete contravention of law. Thus, it was also pointed out that the Top Court in various cases has held that there is no fundamental right to either parole/furlough or remission.
In October, the High Court has granted 15 days parole to a convict on the plea filed by the wife who was desirous of retaining/maintaining her marriage with the convict and preserving her lineage. The bench comprising of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Sameer Jain observed and has taken into account the young age of the convict-petitioner and ordered to release him on parole.
Further, the division bench of the High Court observed and has relied on the case of Nand Lal vs State of Rajasthan wherein this very issue was involved and the Court’s division bench had held the right or wish to have progeny would also be available for a prisoner.