Rajasthan High Court sets aside non-speaking parole rejection for prisoner who absconded for 22 years; orders fresh consideration

Lal Singh, serving a sentence under a 1997 judgment, sought seven days’ parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.

The Superintendent of the Central Jail recommended his application, but the District Parole Committee rejected it on 13 May 2026 without recording reasons.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that, after release on a previous parole in 2001, Lal Singh absconded for approximately 22 years; an FIR was registered, he was arrested in 2024, and 14 criminal cases were registered against him during his absence.

The State acknowledged that the rejection order contained no reasons and submitted that the matter could be reconsidered by a reasoned order.

Whether the District Parole Committee’s rejection of the parole application, without recording reasons, could be sustained

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a fresh application for reconsideration under the 1958 Rules

The Court applied the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, including Rule 18, which governs the parole process and under which the petitioner’s application had been recommended by the Superintendent of Jail.

It described the Rules as welfare legislation intended to alleviate the hardships of prisoners and their families and to maintain or rekindle prisoners’ social and familial ties.

A parole application must be dealt with in accordance with the Rules; a rejection must state reasons in a speaking order.

The Court regarded the petitioner’s 22-year abscondence as a serious misuse of the benefits of the 1958 Rules.

However, the District Parole Committee’s order did not disclose any reasons for rejecting the application.

In light of the State’s acknowledgment of that deficiency, the Court held that the order could not stand and that the application required reconsideration through a reasoned decision.

The petitioner’s conduct was not treated as establishing an entitlement to parole; the Committee was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

It permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application for seven days’ parole and directed the Committee to reconsider it in accordance with the 1958 Rules, without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

The Court did not itself grant parole.