Supreme Court: In a Special Leave Petition, against the order of the Bombay High Court, wherein the Court has ordered that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of the sentence when considering actual imprisonment. The Division Bench of MR Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. has upheld the decision of the High Court, that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence, when considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
In the present case, the convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment and were seeking premature release after having completed 14 years in custody. The convicts applied for premature release under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006(‘Rules, 2006'). However, the State Government rejected their applications, after the convicting court opined that the convicts should not be released prematurely, considering the gravity of their offences. The convicts filed writ petitions before the High Court, arguing that the period of parole should not be excluded from the period of sentence when considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release However, the High Court dismissed their petitions, holding that the period of parole should be excluded when considering premature release.
The issue in this case was, 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?
The petitioners averred that the High Court has 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 of actual imprisonment, for the purpose of premature release. Also, they made a point that while they were on parole, they were in judicial custody. Therefore, their parole period should be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release.
The Court while considering the object and purpose of parole, noted that parole is a conditional release granted by the State Government and it can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment. Its duration extends to one month. Further, it referred to the definition of imprisonment under Rule 2(21) of the Rules, 2006, and noted that “Imprisonment” means imprisonment of either description as defined in Section 53 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of term of parole.
The Court said that the High Court, to justify its decision, has relied on Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, which provided that the period of release on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission of sentence”. Thus, the Court held that once the period of parole is counted as remission of sentence, it must also be excluded from the period of sentence when considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
The Court while denying the submissionof the convicts that even when on parole, the prisoners shall be deemed to be in custody, said that Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 is applicable in a case where a prisoner is taken out from any prison, thus he shall deem to have been in prison. However, the same shall not be applicable with respect to release on parole.
Thus, the Court said that if the prisoners' submissions are accepted, then 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 this may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.
[Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 16 decided on 5-01-2023]
*Judgment by: Justice MR Shah
