Rajasthan High Court dismisses petition by Asaram Bapu seeking 20 days' parole

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by the self-styled godman Asaram Bapu against the rejection of his application for parole by the District Parole Advisory Committee (DPAC) of Jodhpur [Asha Ram v State Of Rajasthan]. .Asaram is serving life sentence in two separate cases of rape in Central Jail, Jodhpur and has been in prison since 2013. He was first convicted in a case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2018. Last year, a Gujarat court convicted him for rape of a devotee in another case. The life sentences in both the cases are running concurrently..The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni found that the new Parole Rules of 2021 in Rajasthan does not allow a prisoner, who has been convicted by a court outside the state, to seek parole.The Court also noted Asaram’s application for parole in connection with the Jodhpur case had been dismissed due to adverse police reports.“Adverse police report given by senior police officials coupled with other considerations, which also include different grounds stated for release on parole on two different applications leads to the conclusion that the reason assigned for rejecting application for grant of parole is neither irrelevant, nor extraneous to the decision making process.” .Asaram's argument before the High Court was that he has already undergone more than half of the sentences awarded in both Jodhpur and Gujarat cases, thereby making him eligible for parole.It was also contended that his application for parole was liable to be considered only under the old Parole Rules of 1958 and not the new Parole Rules of 2021.The State counsel submitted that Asaram’s case for parole was considered under the old Parole Rules in connection with the Jodhpur case since his conviction was ordered prior to coming into force of the new rules.However, the State added that Asaram’s case for parole in connection with the Gujarat case was examined under the Parole Rules of 2021 which state that the prisoner would not be eligible for parole if convicted by a court of another State..Considering the submissions, the Court noted that Asaram’s application for parole was rejected on two grounds: first, he had given different reasons for seeking parole in two his applications and second, there were adverse police reports stating his release would affect law and order.“It would, thus, be seen that two reports, constituting adverse material for grant of release on parole, have been given by very senior and responsible police officers and cannot be said to be based on ipse dixit,” opined the Court.In this context, the Court noted that Rule 5 of the Parole Rules 1958 makes it clear that merely because a prisoner has become eligible, he may not be released on parole.Thus, the Court concluded that the decision of DPAC was not in contravention of the Rules or arbitrary enough to call for judicial interference. .On rejection of Asaram’s parole in connection with the Gujarat case in which he was convicted last year, the Court noted that he has not undergone half the sentence as under the new Parole Rules, life sentence is to be reckoned as 20 years.However, the Court also found that the new Parole Rules do not apply to those persons who have been convicted by a Court of any other state. “Therefore, in any case, the petitioner’s application for grant of first parole of 20 days under the new Parole Rules of 2021 in connection with judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.03 Gandhi Nagar Gujarat is not maintainable on the face of the provisions of law,” it held..The Court opined that irrespective of whether such provision is unconstitutional or not, the law as it stands today bars consideration of an application of such prisoner convicted by a court of another State.Thus, the Court dismissed the petition. With regard to Asaram’s submission regarding his age and illness, the Court said,“Needless to say, the jail authorities are duty bound under the law to provide necessary medical facilities and treatment to the petitioner and application in this regard made to the jail authorities, shall be considered favorably to facilitate proper treatment.”.Senior Advocate Vikas Balia and Advocates Kaluram Bhati, Naresh Charnia, Lalit Kishore Sen and Yashpal Singh represented the petitioner.Advocates Anil Joshi, Rajat Chhaparwal and Pallav Sharma represented the State. [Read Judgment]