Rajasthan High Court granted Asaram 20-day parole–following an order upholding his conviction for raping a minor, in light of his age as well as the fact that he had spent more than 13 years in incarceration.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit rejected the grounds on which the parole application was rejected by the concerned authorities, opining those to be “misleading and figments of imagination without any basis”.

"We have carefully considered the submissions and find that the petitioner has undergone thirteen years, one month and twenty four days incarceration and during this period, earlier also he has been released on interim bail; there is no case of misuse of bail on his part, nor there has been any instance of him causing danger to the society or to any of the witnesses. The apprehensions are, therefore, all misleading and figment of the imagination, without any basis"

For context, the petitioner had filed an application for parole of 20 days, which was rejected by the District Collector and District Magistrate. As per the meetings' minutes, the grounds of parole included an information from the police that the petitioner may abscond or present serious danger to the family of the complainant.

Further, the State submitted that while the petitioner was undergoing treatment, there was no certificate issued by the Medical Office to the effect that he was fit to be released on parole. It was also highlighted that since the petitioner was a convict in a criminal case, he was not eligible for parole under Rule 14(a) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had undergone more than 13 years of imprisonment, and was released on interim bail too earlier, which was not misused in any manner. Further, there was no instance of him presenting any danger to the society.

The court said that in normal course, the committees formed for the purpose of deciding parole applications use same or similar kind of excuses for denying parole without there being any actual instances being cited.

"The Parole Rules would govern parole relating to the conviction awarded by this Court, which is under the State. If there is any other criminal case registered in another State, the same law will take its own course," the court said.

Hence, the Court held that considering petitioner's age and period of imprisonment already undergone, he was entitled to be granted first parole.

Accordingly, the parole application was allowed, with liberty to the Superintendent of Police to impose any adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure his return to custody.

Title: Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

Click Here To Read/Download Order