Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court recently refused to grant parole to Asaram Bapu, serving a life sentence for two rape convictions. The court upheld the decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee (DPAC), citing legal provisions and concerns about the potential adverse effects on law and order. Asaram Bapu’s plea was rejected under Rule 1(3) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, which prohibits consideration of parole for a prisoner convicted in another state. The court rejected the petitioner’s plea to apply older rules, emphasizing the clarity of the new rules.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Asaram Bapu’s counsel argued for parole, referring to past cases where prisoners serving sentences in Rajasthan despite convictions in other states were granted parole. The court, however, emphasized the unambiguous language of Rule 1(3) of the new Parole Rules, 2021, barring consideration for those convicted in other states. The defense also presented health concerns and cited Asaram Bapu’s good conduct in jail, while the prosecution raised apprehensions about potential law and order disturbances.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench concurred with the DPAC’s decision and upheld the denial of parole under Rule 1(3) of the new Parole Rules, 2021. The court clarified the distinction between the old and new rules, highlighting the absence of discretionary language in the new rules compared to the old ones. It rejected the argument that Asaram Bapu could be released on parole by equating different rules, emphasizing the need to adhere to the clear and unequivocal language of Rule 1(3).