Court holds State of Rajasthan bound to implement parole order dated August 3, 2026, rejecting State's claim of legal impediment due to conviction in another State
In a significant judgment delivered on October 3, 2026, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur comprising Justices Dr. Nupur Bhati and Sanjeet Purohit ordered the State authorities to comply immediately with its earlier order granting parole to Asharam alias Ashumal. The Court emphasized that once parole is granted by a binding judicial order, the State cannot refuse its implementation on the ground that the convict faces criminal proceedings or has been convicted in another State, unless there is a clear legal impediment.
Asharam had been granted parole for a period of twenty days by an order dated August 3, 2026. However, the State of Rajasthan withheld his release citing that Asharam stood convicted by a competent court in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, and that his emergent parole application before the Gujarat High Court had been rejected. The State contended that under Rule 14(a) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, Asharam was required to seek parole from the Gujarat High Court as well.
Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the obligation to comply with the Rajasthan High Court's parole order is distinct and not negated by criminal proceedings or conviction in another State. The Court noted that the emergent parole application in Gujarat was dismissed after the Rajasthan High Court had already granted parole. Since no challenge or recall petition against the August 3 order was filed before the Supreme Court or any other authority, the parole order remains binding and enforceable.
The Court instructed the respondents to submit a compliance report on the actual release of Asharam on parole by the next hearing date, scheduled for the third week of October 2026. This ruling underscores the principle that parole orders passed by competent courts must be respected and implemented promptly, barring any specific legal barriers.
This judgment clarifies that distinct statutory and procedural provisions governing parole cannot be used by the State to delay or deny release once a court has ordered parole. It reinforces judicial authority and the rights of prisoners granted parole, ensuring that State authorities act in accordance with binding court directives.
Bottom Line:
Parole - Once parole is granted by a binding court order, the State cannot refuse implementation on the ground of conviction or criminal proceedings in another State, in absence of any legal impediment or challenge to the parole order.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, Rule 14(a)
Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(DB)(Jodhpur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992826
