Object of Parole: If the period of parole is included with the actual period of imprisonment then the very object of imprisonment will be defeated.

 

        The writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging  the impugned judgment High Court of Bombay at Goa .

        The writ petitioners had filed writ petition before the said High Court for including the period of parole with the period of sentence for the purpose of premature release. But the High Court dismissed the petition holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering the 14 years to actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.

        The fact is that the petitioners were all convicts undergoing life imprisonment. On an application for premature release to the State Sentence Revenue Board under the provisions of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, they were recommended for premature release by the State Government. But they were not released because on the opinion of the convicting Court, they were convicted in a grave offence.

    Therefore the writ petitioners preferred writ petition before the High Court challenging the State’s decision to not release petitioners prematurely. It was prayed before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the convicting Court decision to not release the petitioners prematurely. It was prayed before the High Court to hold that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.

        But the High Court dismissed the petitioners’ prayer and held that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence.

        The High Court heavily considered Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 and passed impugned judgment which states that once the period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years actual imprisonment.

        Rules 335 of the Goa Prisons  Rules, 2006  provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole shall be counted as remission of sentence, provided that, in case of breach it shall not be counted.

    So the present appeal arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

        The Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar agreed with the  decision of the High Court and held that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded.

    The Court holding the firm view of the High Court stated:

    “If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get the parole for  number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.”

The submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:

1.       the High Court has seriously erred in holding that period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under the rules 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.

2.       the High Court erred in relying  on the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 to hold that since period of release on parole is counted as remission, the same cannot be counted as part of sentence.

3.       that while on parole the accused/convicts can be said to be in custody/judicial custody and therefore, period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.

4.       the view taken by the High Court is contrary to the decision of  the Apex Court  in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC 409 and Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 409.

5.       as per Section 55 of the Prisons Act,1894, a prisoner when being taken to or from any prison in which he may be lawfully confined, shall be deemed to be in prison and therefore, the period of parole shall have to be included as in custody for the purpose of actual period of imprisonment while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.

        According to Supreme Court,  the reliance placed by learned senior counsel on the decision  in Sunil Fulchand Shah case is not applicable to the present case because it was a case of detenu under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. It was observed, period of detention would not stand automatically extended by any period of parole granted to the detenu unless the order of parole or rules or instruction specifically indicates as a term and condition of parole.

        The reference made to Avtar Singh’s case also hold no relevance to the present case because the facts of the case relates to temporary release of the prisoner provided under sub-section 3 Section  3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 which was challenged as being arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. The sub-section provides that the period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner.

A prisoner released on parole under Section 3 is not entitled for counting the period of release towards the total period of sentence of imprisonment undergone by him whereas, a prisoner released on furlough, period of such temporary release shall be counted towards his total period of imprisonment – Court had said.

    Before coming to conclusion, the Hon’ble Justices took into consideration, the purpose and object of parole stating :

  

“Parole is a conditional release. Parole can be granted in case of short term imprisonment. Duration of parole extends to one month. Parole is granted  by the State Government. For parole, specific reason is required. Parole can be granted for number of times.”

Also Read:

The grant of furlough leave is subject to eligibility criteria and limitations.

Coram:

Justice M.R. Shah

Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Case:

Rohan Dhungat Etc.  Versus The State of Goa & Ors Etc. (SLP (CRL) NOS. 12574-12577 OF 2022)

 

Date of Judgment:  5/1/2023

Click here to download judgment