Asha Ram Alias Ashumal vs State Of Rajasthan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19124

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, ACJ, Sanjeet Purohit, J
Asha Ram Alias Ashumal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14497/2026

Important Points

Parole should not be denied based on mere apprehensions of absconding or existence of criminal cases in other states if the prisoner has a clean record of not misusing previous bails and has served significant incarceration.

Subject

Criminal Law - Prisoner Rights/Parole

Act Referred

Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958: R.14(a)

Headnote

(A) Prisoner's Rights - Parole - Rejection based on apprehension of absconding and pending cases in other states - Mere apprehension without evidence of prior misuse of bail or danger to witnesses is insufficient ground to deny parole. (Para 3, 4)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 - Scope of Rule 14(a) - Parole rules regarding convictions within the state should not be precluded by separate criminal proceedings in other states, as those proceed independently under relevant laws. (Para 4)

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted parole despite pending criminal cases in another state and police apprehensions of absconding.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kalu Ram Bhati, Rohit Singh Rawal, Yashpal Singh Rajpurohit, Bharat Sain, Neeraj Panwar, Manohar Singh Sisodia, Naresh Charniya, Maya Goswami, Vakeel Kumar, Swapan Chouhan
For the Respondents: Deepak Chandak for B.L. Bhati, AAG

Table of Content
1. the administrative rejection of parole based on police reports of absconding and out-of-state convictions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. evaluation of the prisoner's conduct and the interpretation of parole rules regarding extra-state criminal cases. (Para 3 , 4)
3. grant of first parole based on age, duration of incarceration, and lack of prior bail misuse. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati Mr. Rohit Singh Rawal

Mr. Yashpal Singh Rajpurohit Mr. Bharat Sain

Mr. Neeraj Panwar Mr. Manohar Singh Sisodia

Mr. Naresh Charniya Ms. Maya Goswami

Mr. Vakeel Kumar Mr. Swapan Chouhan

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

03/08/2026

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Home Department and other respondents has placed before us the minutes of the meeting of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Jodhpur held on 31^st July 2026, which reflects that the

(Uploaded on 03/08/2026 at 06:48:09 PM)

(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 06:46:17 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:36060-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14497/2026] application filed by the petitioner seeking parole for twenty days has been rejected on the ground that there is an information from the police that the petitioner may abscond and also on the count that he would not be eligible to be granted parole in terms of the Rule 14(a) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 as there is a criminal case registered against the petitioner out of the State of Rajasthan and also that he has been convicted

by the Court of another State, namely, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

2. It has further been stated that while the petitioner is undergoing treatment, there is no certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the petitioner being fit to be released on parole. Apprehension of serious danger to the family of the complainant is

also being highlighted.

3. 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.

4. We notice 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

(Uploaded on 03/08/2026 at 06:48:09 PM)

(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 06:46:17 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:36060-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14497/2026] the State. If there is any other criminal case registered in another

State, the same law will take its own course.

5. Considering the provisions as also the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has already put in for more than thirteen years of incarceration, we deem it appropriate to grant him benefit of first parole to the petitioner and it is ordered that the petitioner Asha Ram Alias Ashumal S/o Late Shri Thevardas Alias Thaumal shall be released on first parole of twenty days upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur on the usual terms and conditions. The Superintendent, Central Jail concerned shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of actual

release of the petitioner.

6. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

7. All the pending application(s) also stands disposed of.