466 of 2021, 467 of 2021, 471 of 2021 and 472 of 2021 dated 03.08.2022, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions 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 original writ petitioners have preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.
It was the case on behalf of the convicts- original petitioners that the period of parole is not to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of actual 2 9 imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
Shri Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble High Court has seriously erred in holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years 3 9 of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
It is further submitted by Shri Dave learned senior counsel for the original writ petitioners-convicts that even as per 4 9 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, deemed to be in custody 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.
The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether the 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?
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
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.
Similarly, the decision of this case in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand while considering the issue viz.
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 8 9 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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these Special Leave Petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: ROHAN DHUNGAT Vs. THE STATE OF GOA (2023 INSC 16)
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-012574-012577 / 2022
