For purpose of considering actual imprisonment, period of parole is to be excluded: Supreme Court
The Top Court relied on Rule 335 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 which specifically provided that parole is to be counted as remission of sentence.
The Supreme Court recently held in its firm view that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar added that if the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get parole for a number of times as there are no restrictions and that may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.
Court made these observations while hearing an SLP filed by a bunch of convicts undergoing life imprisonment challenging the High Court's order dismissing their writ petitions holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering the 14 years' time of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
Since all the convicts were released on parole under the provisions of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 (Rules, 2006), the convicts had then applied for premature release under the Rules, 2006 following which the State Sentence Revenue Board recommended for premature release. State Government sought opinion of the convicting Court on their premature release which opined that the convicts shall not be released prematurely considering the gravity of offence.
Therefore, the State Government rejected their prayer. The convicts – original writ petitioners, then preferred the respective writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the State’s decision and contended that since they had completed 14 years in custody and they were entitled to premature release.
In the impugned judgment, taking into consideration Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 which provided that the period of release on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission of sentence ….”, the High Court observed and held that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
The Top Court referred to the object and purpose of parole while considering the SLP before it.
"Once the period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, as rightly observed and held by the High Court, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment", the division bench thus observed while dismissing the SLP.
Case Title: Rohan Dhungat Etc. vs. The State of Goa & Ors Etc