Judgment Intelligence
Referred to Larger Bench- 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))
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
- The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative determination; no petition was decided on merits (paras 5-6).
- 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).
- 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
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
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
- Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107
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).
- Hitesh v. State of Gujarat (2024) 5 SCC 623
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).
- State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216
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)
- Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan and Others (1987) 3 SCC 347
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).
- Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2023
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).
- State of Haryana v. Nauratta Singh (2000) 3 SCC 514
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).
- Dadu v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437
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).

