Near Topkhana Gate, Jhalawar (Raj.) v. State of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, Through Inspector General, Prison, Jaipur.

3. The District Magistrate, Kota. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.B.R.Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini, Addl. Govt. Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 22/07/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-

1. This petition is filed aggrieved of rejection of the application for emergent parole.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner in Sessions Case No.128/2018 was convicted under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120B IPC, vide judgment dated 14.05.2025 and sentenced life imprisonment. The petitioner filed an application dated

23.05.2025 for granting emergent parole for delivery of his wife. D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.731/2025 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 30.06.2025 with directions to the [2025:RJ-JP:27268-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLW-924/2025] District Collector to decide the application for emergent parole within three days. The application was rejected by the District Collector vide order dated 09.07.2025. It is held that under Rule 16(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (for short ‘2021 Rules’), the petitioner is ineligible for release.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 16 of the 2021 Rules has no application in emergent cases covered by Rule 11.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that petitioner was convicted u/s 364 IPC and under Rule 16(2) cannot be released on parole. Submission is that the petitioner is involved in two more criminal cases.

5. Parole is defined under Rule 2(g) of 2021 Rules as enlargement of a prisoner from the jail on conditions;

5.1 Under Rule 10 after completion of one fourth of sentence with remission, if any, and on maintaining good conduct in the jail, the prisoner may be released on parole. First, second and third parole are of twenty, thirty and forty days respectively. For second and third parole the behaviour during earlier parole is to be considered.

6. Rule 11 starts with a non-obstante clause and has overriding effect to Rule 5, 6 and 10 of the 2021 Rules. Rule 11 deals with emergent caseS involving humanitarian considerations and five instances have been mentioned in Rule 11 (1). The prisoner under Rule 11 can be released on emergent parole for a period not exceeding seven days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not exceeding fifteen days by the Inspector General of Prisons or District Magistrate. The release shall be subject to [2025:RJ-JP:27268-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLW-924/2025] terms and conditions imposed for security of prisoner and to ensure return to the jail.

7. Heading of Rule 16 is ‘ineligibility for release’. Rule 16(1) stipulates the prisoners who cannot be released on Parole, before serving half of the sentence, including remission. The prisoners convicted under enactments and provisions of IPC mentioned in Rule 16(2) are not eligible for release on Parole.

8. The issue involved in the present petition is as to whether the Rule 16 shall apply to an application made under Rule 11.

9. Rule 5 deals with application for release on parole. Rule 6 deals with disposal of parole application and Rule 10 deals with the parole period as also the pre-conditions for release on parole.

10. Rule 15 provides that the concession of parole is with an object to encourage good conduct by the prisoners and the parole is not a matter of right.

11. Under Rule 14, the period a prisoner spends on parole under Rule 10 shall be considered as imprisonment served, whereas all other kinds of conditional release shall be treated as suspension of sentence. In other words, the period of release other than under Rule 10 the prisoner has to undergo the sentence for that period.

12. Inspite of Rule 10, a specific provision i.e. Rule 11 is enacted to deal with situation involving humanitarian consideration for release of prisoner on emergent parole. Rule of interpretation is that the provisions of the enactment has to be given harmonious construction. On combined reading of Rule 2(g), 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of 2021 Rules, the differentiation of release under Rule 10 & 11 is evident. [2025:RJ-JP:27268-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLW-924/2025]

13. Rule 11 is specific provision enacted for release of the petitioner on emergent parole in the circumstances involving humanitarian consideration. Five instances have been mentioned in Rule 11(1) such as critical illness of close relative; death of close relative; serious damage to life or property result of natural calamity; marriage of a prisoner/his wards or brother or sister where the parents of the prisoner are not alive and delivery of wife of the petitioner. This Rule operates despite a general provision of release on parole under Rule 10.

14. On harmonious construction of Rules 2(g), 5, 6, 10, 11 & 16 the interpretation is that condition of ineligibility for release on parole given in Rule 16 shall not be applicable to an application made under Rule 11 but are for release on Parole under Rule 10.

15. Another aspect is that for circumstances and provisions of IPC mentioned in Rule 16(1) a prisoner is ineligible for release on parole till having served half of the sentence including remission. In case, release of the petitioner covered under Rule 16(1) is to be delayed till serving of half of the sentence it shall defeat the basic purpose of Rule 11 providing for emergent release on humanitarian consideration. In other words, Rule 11 for release of prisoner for taking care of a seriously ill relative/death of any close relative/property damage in natural calamity/marriage of prisoner or his children/delivery of prisoner’s wife shall become otiose if the prisoner covered under Rule 16(1) has to wait till serving half of the sentence.

16. On the other hand, emergent release under Rule 11 are for compelling humanitarian consideration which needs immediate attention and cannot be postponed and waited for. [2025:RJ-JP:27268-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLW-924/2025]

17. We may hasten to add that the release under Rule 11 is subject to Director General of Prisons forming opinion under proviso to Rule 11(2) that prisoner is not under high security category or is not convicted for grave offence.

18. The application under Rule 11 of petitioner was rejected solely on ground of being ineligible under Rule 16(2), for reasons mentioned above the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Collector to decide the matter within three days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

19. The criminal writ petition (parole) is allowed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Monika/48 Reportable: Yes