Rajasthan HC Denies Parole To Asaram Bapu Convicted In Rape Case; Cites Bar On Release Under 2021 Parole Rules, Possible Law & Order Situation

Recently, Rajasthan High Court refused to grant 20 days parole to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is currently serving a life sentence in Central Jail, Jodhpur after two rape convictions in Rajasthan and Gujarat respectively.

The District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur (DPAC) had rejected his application for the first grant of parole on 22.08.2023. Before that, another application was rejected by DPAC on 20.06.2023.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Rajendra Prakash Soni concurred with DPAC's decision to deny parole since such an application could not be accepted under Rule 1 (3) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.

“Irrespective of whether such provisions is unconstitutional or not, the law as it stands today, bars consideration of an application of a prisoner, who is undergoing jail sentence in a jail of Rajasthan, having convicted by a Court of other State. Thus, there is a clear prohibition under the law. Therefore, the prayer to read down Rule 1(3) of the new Parole Rules of 2021…. cannot be accepted”, the court said.

Petitioner's counsel urged the court to grant parole by citing its earlier decisions where prisoners were released despite getting convicted in another state and serving jail sentences in Rajasthan, rendered as per the Old Parole Rules of 1958.

The court noted that, as per Rule 1(3) of Parole Rules, 2021, the aforesaid reasoning would not apply to those persons who had been convicted in another state or those who have been court-martialled. The court also found untenable the argument that Asaram can be released on parole by equating Rule 14(a) of the Old Parole Rules, 1958 to Rule 1 (3) of the New Parole Rules, even if he is serving the sentence in Rajasthan.

Person who resides outside Rajasthan, and was convicted by Court of another State not ordinarily eligible for parole under New Rules

The court noted that Rule 14(a) of the old rules provided that the persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court of another State will 'ordinarily' not be eligible for release on parole.

“…While in Rule 14(a) of the old Parole Rules of 1958, the word “Ordinarily” has been incorporated leaving it to the discretion of the authorities for grant of first parole of 20 days even to those who have been convicted by a Court outside the State of Rajasthan, the word “Ordinarily” is conspicuously absent in the new Parole Rules of 2021. The rule is clear and unequivocal that it will not apply to persons, who have been convicted by a Court of other State”, the court observed by demarcating the contrast in the language provided in the Old Rules and the New Rules.

It was noted that the Old Rules left some scope of discretion to the concerned authorities for granting parole even if a person was not residing in Rajasthan or got convicted in another state. This is because the words 'ordinarily not be eligible' denoted the non-mandatory nature of Rule 14(a), however, the same analogy can't be extended to Rule 1(3) of the 2021 Rules, the court clarified.

For the grant of parole concerning the conviction in Gujarat, the court opined that determining whether the petitioner has completed the minimum period of sentence to be eligible is irrelevant when the Rules themselves do not apply to the situation.

“…In the absence of there being any challenge to the constitutionality and validity of Rule 1(3) of the new Parole Rules of 2021, we are not inclined to examine the vires of the aforesaid provisions”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms.

The Division Bench, however, directed the jail authorities to ensure proper medical facilities for the petitioner and underscored that Asaram can again apply for first parole of 20 days in case of a change in circumstances.

Granting parole may lead to adverse effect on law and order situation

While declining the parole in connection with the jail sentence awarded in the Jodhpur verdict on 25.04.2018, the Division Bench rejected the same by citing an 'adverse effect on law-and-order situation'. This was in concurrence with DPAC's observation, and despite reports about good conduct in jail from the Superintendent and Welfare Officer, as well as pleas made about the petitioner's health issues.

The court had also taken note of the unfavourable reports from the Deputy Commissioners of Police in Jaipur (East) and Jodhpur (West).

In the first report, it was mentioned that the release of the godman convicted under the POCSO Act will likely hurt the sentiments of society and draw the ire of those who have positioned themselves with the victim. Similarly, as for Jodhpur (West), the Commissioner reported that granting parole can be calamitous to the law & order situation since there a lot of disciples for Asaram in the state.

Moreover, this can lead to a life-threatening situation for the victim and her family. Additionally, parole could only be accepted on such address where the petitioner has a permanent residence or family, the commissioner had reported.

After referring to Rule 5 of the old Parole Rules of 1958, the court opined that the material that was placed before the District Parole Advisory Committee including the Reports of Police Commissioners, Additional District Magistrate, and Superintendent of Central Jail cannot be regarded as irrelevant.

“…Adverse police report given by senior police officials coupled with other considerations, which also include different grounds stated for release on parole on two different applications leads to the conclusion that the reason assigned for rejecting application for grant of parole is neither irrelevant, nor extraneous to the decision-making process”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed while upholding DPAC's decision to deny parole in relation to the conviction in Jodhpur.

The court also stressed the purpose of various provisions for granting parole and reminded that 'competing public interest' must be considered alongside the purpose of reformation to determine whether a prisoner should be granted parole or not.

As per Section 427(2) Cr.P.C, for Asaram, the life sentence awarded in Gujarat have been running concurrently with the life sentence awarded in Jodhpur. In the Parole rejection by DPAC on 20.06.2023, the application was considered under the New Rules alone. At that time, DPAC reasoned with Rules 16(1)(c) and 17(d) that Asaram should undergo half of the sentence (period of sentence awarded + default sentence), i.e., 11 years and 7 months before becoming eligible. Non-applicability of the new rules themselves to the parole application as per Rule 1(3) was also noted.

Accordingly, the prayers were rejected. 

Case Title: Asha Ram @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petition No. 1454/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 16