The Rajasthan High Court has held that not availing or applying for regular or periodic paroles does not disqualify a person from grant of permanent parole under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (the “Rules”).

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a petition challenging the order of the relevant authorities that rejected the petitioner's application for permanent parole on the ground that out of the three regular paroles, he had availed only one.

The petitioner referred to the second proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules, and argued that as per the proviso there was no bar on grant of permanent parole on account of the applicant having not availed any regular or periodic paroles, for any reason.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the second proviso to Rule 10, as well as referred to a division bench case of Suraj Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in which it was held that not availing 3 or any of the paroles by the prisoner, was not a ground in itself for refusing grant of permanent parole.

“The second proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules of 2021 provides 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. As such, not availing or applying for the regular or periodic parole would not be a disqualification for grant of permanent parole as specified in the Rule 10 of the Rules 2021.”

Accordingly, the order of the competent authority was set aside for being “absolutely unjustified”, and the jail authorities were directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole.