Summary
A life convict in Haryana, released on emergency parole during the Covid-19 pandemic under decisions of the High-Powered Committee constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's orders in the suo motu prison overcrowding matter, petitioned under Article 32 against the Committee's decision of 9 May 2021 that the period of such interim parole would not count towards his sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that temporary release in Haryana is governed by Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which excludes the parole period from the sentence and whose validity was upheld in Avtar Singh, that the Committee's note merely reflected the statute, and that under Mohinder Singh and Rohan Dhungat the period of parole is excluded in computing actual imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the period during which a convict was released on emergency or interim parole pursuant to decisions of the High-Powered Committee constituted under the Supreme Court's orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 1 of 2020 counts towards the total period of his sentence.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(3), Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988Provides that the period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence; its validity was upheld in Avtar Singh, and the High-Powered Committee's note that interim parole would not count towards the sentence is in consonance with it. (¶¶ 4.1, 5)
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The petitioner, convicted under these provisions and sentenced to life imprisonment upheld up to the Supreme Court, must actually undergo the sentence subject to any remission policy, excluding the period of parole. (¶¶ 3.1, 6)
Held
- The release of prisoners on emergency parole under the High-Powered Committee's decisions did not displace the statutory regime; the Committee had in November 2020 left the question of counting the parole period to the statutory provisions and later recorded that it would not count, which accords with Section 3(3) of the 1988 Act. (¶ 4.1)
- Following Avtar Singh, which upheld Section 3(3), Mohinder Singh, which held that the period on parole does not count towards the sentence, and Rohan Dhungat, which held that parole must be excluded in computing actual imprisonment lest influential prisoners obtain repeated parole and defeat the object of the sentence, the period of emergency or interim parole is to be excluded for the purpose of actual imprisonment. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.2, 6)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; the period of release on emergency or interim parole pursuant to the High-Powered Committee's decisions is excluded in computing the petitioner's actual imprisonment under his life sentence.