1. - All these writ petitions involve a similar issue and therefore they are being decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the authorities concerned by which their applications for parole had been rejected. Therefore they have, in these writ petitions, prayed that they be granted parole by this Court. Another common feature of these petitions is that regular appeals have been filed under section 374 Cr.P.C. before the High Court against the judgment passed by the learned trial court, whereby they have been convicted for the offence, inter alia, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment, which are still pending. Further, they had filed applications for suspension of execution of sentence awarded to them during the pendency of the regular appeals before the High Court but the same have been dismissed.

3. An issue of general importance arises in these cases and therefore, we intend to deal with them elaborately. In cases of heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, appeals are filed before the Division Bench in the High Court. Application for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of the appeal, are also filed. But in some cases, after considering the application for suspension of execution of sentence on merits, High Court had declined the prayer and rejected such application. The appeal against the judgment of the learned trial court remains pending.It is often found that thereafter the accused is released from custody on parole. In State of Rajasthan, initial parole is granted for 20 days. Second parole is granted for 30 days and third parole is granted for 40 days. Thereafter, the accused applies for permanent parole. Broadly speaking, the eligibility for seeking parole is that the accused should have undergone 1/4th of imprisonment awarded to him; his conduct should be good in jail; no objection is sought from the officer of the Social Welfare Department and the Superintendent of Police of the area where the accused is to spend his period of parole. All these conditions, by enlarge, are not difficult to be fulfilled by a prisoner. An application for parole is filed before the jail authorities and the same is granted. However, in some cases, such application is rejected. On refusal of any of the applications for aforesaid paroles or permanent parole by the jail authorities, such orders are then challenged before the High Court, under its writ jurisdiction.

4. In State of Rajasthan, the rules for release on parole were framed in the year 1958. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 401 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 432 under Cr.P.C., 1973), the Government of Rajasthan had made the rules which were to be called as Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. These rules were not to apply to persons under sentence of imprisonment for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive powers of Union of India extended. Such persons are to be governed by the central rules made by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Under Rule 1(c) of the Rules of 1958, it is provided that the Rules shall not apply to persons under a sentence of imprisonment for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of Union of India extends. Such persons shall be governed by the Central Rules made in the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs No.40/32/55-Judl.I dated 9th November, 1955.In the cases of convict sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act or against any such law relating to a matter to which the executive powers of the Union of India extends, the Rules of 1958 would not apply and the Rules of 1955 framed by the Central Government are applicable for release o