Rajasthan High Court Grants Parole To Life Convict Despite Absconding History, Cites Long Incarceration
While allowing application for parole of a murder convict with a history of absconding, Rajasthan High Court held that the word “ordinarily” used in Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, reflected that the ineligibility under the Rule had to be seen considering all facts and circumstances of a case. For context, Rule 14 prescribes classes of prisoners who...
While allowing application for parole of a murder convict with a history of absconding, Rajasthan High Court held that the word “ordinarily” used in Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, reflected that the ineligibility under the Rule had to be seen considering all facts and circumstances of a case.
For context, Rule 14 prescribes classes of prisoners who will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma held that if certain ineligibility was mentioned under the first part of Rule 14, the Court were free to consider the facts and circumstances in the appropriate case.
“…two very important words in Rule 14 are “ordinarily” which is used in the first part of Rule 14 and “unless” which is used in second part of Rule 14 clearly denote that the first part is required to be considered in the ordinary circumstances of the case and second part is required to be considered in the mandatory form…”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the petitioner who was convicted of murder in 2013 and was undergoing life imprisonment. He had applied for his first parole of 20 days, which was rejected by the District Parole Committee. Hence, the petition was filed.
The State had contended that the petitioner was absconding from the Open Air Camp for about 6 months, and as per Rule 14 of the 1958 Rules he was ineligible for parole.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that since such condition for ineligibility in Rule 14 was qualified by the word “ordinarily”, all facts and circumstances in the case had to be examined.
The Court observed that the mandatory condition under Rule 14 was qualified by the word “unless” which was regarding the applicant serving 1/4th of his/her total sentence, however, the second part of the Rule was qualified by “ordinarily”.
In this background, the Court held that even though the petitioner had absconded, thereafter he had undergone sentence of more than 6 years. Hence, his application for parole had to be considered favourably.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, with directions to release the petitioner.
Title: Bhuriya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 156