Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Comply With Asaram’s 20-Day Parole Order, holding that no legal impediment arising from proceedings outside Rajasthan nullifies or suspends the earlier grant of parole.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to comply with its 3 August 2026 order granting 20 days’ parole to convict Asaram, holding that the State is under a binding obligation to give effect to that order and calling for a compliance report showing his actual release on parole [Asharam alias Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan].
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit passed the order on a miscellaneous application filed by the convict seeking directions to the State to implement the parole order.
The application
The applicant told the Court that although he had been granted 20 days’ parole on 3 August 2026, he had not been released, and the order therefore remained unimplemented.
The State’s objection
The Additional Advocate General, B.L. Bhati, submitted that the Division Bench’s parole order had recorded that, if other criminal cases existed, the law would take its own course. He pointed out that the applicant stands convicted in a case at Gandhinagar, Gujarat, and argued that he must seek parole from the Gujarat High Court under Rule 14(a) of the Rules of 1958. The State also stated that the applicant’s application for emergent parole before the Gujarat High Court had been rejected.
The applicant’s reply
Counsel for the applicant responded that the Gujarat application had been dismissed on 13 August 2026, and that the Division Bench had granted parole in Rajasthan despite the Rule 14(a) objection, so a separate application in Gujarat was not required.
What the Court said
The Bench found that the Additional Advocate General could not point to any legal impediment, arising from proceedings outside Rajasthan, that would nullify or suspend the 3 August 2026 order. It noted that entitlement to emergent parole is governed by distinct statutory and rule-based provisions, which do not by themselves affect the obligation to comply with the parole order already passed. The State, the Court observed, had also not shown any challenge to that order before the Supreme Court or any application for its recall or modification.
The Court held:
“the respondents are under a binding obligation to give effect to and comply with the said order.”
The direction
The Court directed that a compliance report, indicating the applicant’s actual release on parole, be placed before it on the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed in the third week of October 2026.
Why the order matters
The order reiterates that a parole order passed by a constitutional court binds the State and has to be implemented. On the State’s reliance on proceedings in another State, the Bench found no legal impediment in the material placed before it.
The Court has expressed no view on the entitlement of the convict to any further relief. The order deals only with compliance with the earlier grant of parole, and the compliance report will be considered on the next date.
Case Title: Asharam alias Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 449/2026]
Bench: Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit, Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
Date of Order: October 3, 2026
Appearances: Nishant Bora, Kaluram Bhati, Yashpal Singh Rajpurohit and Bharat Sain for the petitioner; B.L. Bhati, Additional Advocate General, with Deepak Chandak for the State