Bench sets aside rejection of permanent parole for prisoner Anil, emphasizing conduct over parole history under Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021
In a significant decision delivered on October 29, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench, Division Bench) ruled that a prisoner cannot be disqualified from permanent parole merely because he has availed only one regular parole or has not applied for or availed regular periodic paroles. The judgment came in the writ petition filed by Anil, who challenged the rejection of his application for permanent parole by the competent authority on the ground that he had availed only one out of the three regular paroles prescribed under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 ("Rules of 2021").
The Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain, examined the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2021, which governs parole periods and conditions for prisoners. The rule provides for first, second, and third paroles based on good conduct and sets out conditions for permanent parole after serving two-thirds of the sentence. Crucially, the second proviso to Rule 10 explicitly states that "if a prisoner has not applied any regular periodic parole or not availed any regular parole for any reason shall not be disqualified for permanent parole."
The impugned order by the competent authority had denied Anil's permanent parole application citing his non-availment of all three regular paroles. The High Court found this reasoning contrary to the clear language of the Rule and held that non-availing or non-applying for regular parole is not a bar to permanent parole.
The Court also relied on the precedent set by a Division Bench in Suraj Giri v. State of Rajasthan (2011 CRI. L. J. 1534), which held that failure to avail any of the three regular paroles is not a ground for refusal of permanent parole. The relevant consideration for permanent parole is the prisoner's character and conduct, including behavior in jail, rather than merely the history of parole availed.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated June 16, 2026, and directed the jail authorities to release Anil on permanent parole on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 before the concerned District Magistrate. The Court stipulated that if Anil commits any undesirable activity during the parole period, he could be required to serve the remaining sentence and must maintain peace and abide by conditions imposed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that parole decisions must primarily be based on merit and conduct rather than rigid procedural formalities. It upholds the rehabilitative purpose of parole by recognizing the prisoner's behavior over mere numerical parole records.
Bottom Line:
Parole - Permanent parole cannot be denied merely because prisoner has availed only one regular parole or has not applied for/availed regular periodic paroles - Second proviso to Rule 10 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 specifically removes such disqualification.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 Rule 10, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 433
Anil v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011079
