Overstaying Temporary Parole Period Not Bar For Grant Of Permanent Parole Under Rule 14(C) Of Prisoners Rules: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has recently held that overstaying the temporary parole period cannot be imposed as a bar on availing permanent parole under Rule 14(c) of Rajasthan Prisoners (Release On Parole) Rules, 1958.

The Division Bench of Justices Inderjeet Singh and Ashutosh Kumar observed that overstaying the parole period cannot be equated with the restrictions contained in Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958. Rule 14(c) states that permanent parole will be denied to prisoners who have escaped from jail or police custody or have attempted to escape from custody.

However, the bench sitting at Jaipur clarified that overstaying parole does not fall within the ambit of any of these restrictions. The court, hence, held that the petitioner who has served the actual sentence period of more than 15 years is entitled to permanent parole under Rule 9 of the 1958 Rules. The court also highlighted that the Superintendent of Central Jail has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory.

“…there is total non-application of mind by the competent authority while rejecting the application for permanent parole vide order dated 13.02.2024 as this Court in earlier writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has observed that overstaying of the petitioner after being released on parole would not fall under Rule 14(c) of the Rules of 1958…”, the court remarked about the ertswhile division bench order favoring the petitioner, passed on 19.10.2023.

The court also censured the state parole committee for rejecting the parole application yet again by wrongly placing reliance on an observation made in a Division Bench Criminal Reference pertaining to Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. Even before the order dated 13.02.2024, the committee had rejected the petitioner's application on 08.08.2023 as well, citing the same reason of overstaying the parole.

During the hearing of the first D.B. Criminal Writ Petition, the state had also canvassed about the alleged disqualification incurred by the petitioner by not availing the benefit of three regular paroles before seeking permanent parole.

In response to similar grounds taken by the state in the current writ petition, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that his client has been in judicial custody since November 1996. The petitioner was convicted in the year of 2000 for offenses under Sections 148/147, 342, 458, 307, 396, 397, 398 r/w 149 of the IPC and his appeal against conviction was also dismissed in 2003.

The counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the breach of parole condition by not returning before the Jail authorities on or before 19.05.2007 amounts to the dereliction of overstaying the parole alone. It does not amount to escaping from jail or police custody, he submitted before the Division Bench about the non-applicability of Rule 14(c) in the current factual scenario. He also added that a convict can seek permanent parole without exhausting the three regular paroles since it's a beneficial legislation.

While allowing the writ petition and instructing the state to release the petitioner on permanent parole, the court also mandated the petitioner to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.

For Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma

For Respondents: Mr. Javed Chaudhary, Dy.G.A.

Case Title: Om Prakash S/o Shri Nath Mal Ji v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 398/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 63

Click Here To Read/ Download Order