Latest
Friday, October 30, 2026
Rajasthan High Court
Criminal Law

1958 or 2021 Parole Rules for Prisoners Convicted Earlier? Rajasthan High Court Refers Three Questions to Larger Bench

Published: · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, has referred three parole questions to a Larger Bench without deciding nine connected petitions on merits (paras 1, 5). The questions are whether the 1958 or the 2021 Rajasthan parole Rules govern a prisoner convicted before 2021, whether parole amounts to a temporary suspension of sentence, and how the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita affects the 1958 Rules (para 5).

1958 or 2021 Parole Rules for Prisoners Convicted Earlier? Rajasthan High Court Refers Three Questions to Larger Bench

Judgment Intelligence

Referred to Larger Bench
Ashok v. State of Rajasthan
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12101/2026 (with D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12102, 12103, 12104, 12106, 12107, 12108, 12109 and 12111/2026)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
29 October 2026
Bench
Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain
Relevant Acts & Sections
Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 — Rule 14(d); Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 2021; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 401 (as cited in question (b)); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 432 (as cited in question (b))
Final Outcome

The Division Bench referred the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative determination of the questions framed (para 5) and directed the Registry to proceed accordingly (para 6). No petitioner's claim to parole was decided on merits.

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 29.10.2026

Key holdings

  1. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative determination; no petition was decided on merits (paras 5-6).
  2. The Larger Bench is to decide whether the 1958 Rules in force at conviction or the 2021 Rules in force when the application is considered govern parole (para 5).
  3. It will also decide whether parole is a temporary suspension of sentence, and how the BNSS replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure affects the 1958 Rules (para 5).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Nine writ petitions, two of them by the same petitioner, raised identical issues and sought identical reliefs, so the Court took them up together (para 1). In the lead case, a prisoner confined in the Open Air Camp, Karauli, sought parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, challenging the State Committee's order of 8 October 2025 refusing him permanent parole (para 1). An earlier order had noted that permanent parole was denied by invoking Rule 14(d) of the 1958 Rules, although the State had granted it to some prisoners despite that rule; another had invited the Bar to address which Rules govern prisoners convicted before the 2021 Rules (para 3).

Court's Findings

Having heard the parties and perused the relevant Rules (para 2), the Bench noted the Advocate General's contention that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the BNSS specifically provides for parole (para 4). In view of the submissions and the questions arising, it referred the matter to a Larger Bench "for an authoritative determination of the issues involved", framing these questions, inter alia (para 5): (a) "Whether, for the purpose of grant of parole, the Rules prevailing on the date of conviction of the prisoner would apply i.e. the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, or whether the Rules in force at the time of consideration of the parole application i.e. the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 2021 would govern the matter?" (b) "Whether the grant of parole amounts to a temporary suspension of sentence, as contemplated under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 432 of the BNSS)?" (c) "What would be the effect of the repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its replacement by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the applicability and operation of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958?" It answered none (paras 5-6).

Legal Principle

The order lays down no rule of law. A Division Bench may refer legal questions to a Larger Bench for an authoritative determination; here, which parole Rules govern prisoners convicted before 2021, whether parole is a temporary suspension of sentence, and the effect of the BNSS replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 1958 Rules (para 5).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Prisoners convicted before the 2021 parole Rules came into force, and those advising them, should note that the High Court has not yet said which regime governs their parole: that is the first question now before a Larger Bench, alongside whether parole suspends the sentence and what the BNSS changes (para 5). Until it answers, this order settles nothing on the Rule 14(d) refusals or on the State's grant of permanent parole to some prisoners despite that rule (para 3). Earlier rulings worked within one regime or the other: Nilam Kumar applied the 1958 Rules (emergent parolees cannot claim the Covid-19 Rule 10B extension), and Khartaram the 2021 Rules (insisting on sureties from an indigent prisoner makes parole illusory).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the plea for grant of parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

  2. Hitesh v. State of Gujarat (2024) 5 SCC 623
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the plea for grant of parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

  3. State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the plea for grant of parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

View all precedents (7)
  1. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan and Others (1987) 3 SCC 347
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by the Advocate General against the plea for parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

  2. Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by the Advocate General against the plea for parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

  3. State of Haryana v. Nauratta Singh (2000) 3 SCC 514
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by the Advocate General against the plea for parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

  4. Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by the Advocate General against the plea for parole (para 4). The Court did not rely on it; it referred the questions to a Larger Bench (para 5).

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: October 29, 2026 Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt