Summary
Life convicts in Goa sought premature release on the ground that they had served 14 years of actual imprisonment, counting periods spent on parole. The Bombay High Court at Goa held that parole must be excluded, and the Supreme Court agreed. Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 counts parole as remission of sentence, so it cannot also count as actual imprisonment. Section 55 of the Prisons Act deems a prisoner to be in prison only while being taken to or from a prison, not while on parole. Sunil Fulchand Shah and Avtar Singh are distinguishable. Counting parole would let influential prisoners, who can obtain parole repeatedly, defeat the purpose of actual imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 when computing 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release.
Provisions considered
- Rules 2(21) and 335, Goa Prisons Rules, 2006Imprisonment does not include the term of parole, and Rule 335 counts furlough and parole as remission of sentence, so parole is excluded from actual imprisonment. (¶¶ 6, 7.1)
- Section 55, Prisons Act, 1894The deeming of a prisoner as in prison applies while he is taken to or from a prison and not to release on parole. (¶ 9)
Held
- Since Rule 335 treats parole as remission of sentence, the period of parole must be excluded when computing 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release. (¶¶ 5, 7.1, 10)
- Sunil Fulchand Shah, a COFEPOSA detention case, and Avtar Singh do not apply, and Section 55 of the Prisons Act does not treat a parolee as in custody. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 9)
- Including parole, which can be granted any number of times, would allow influential prisoners to defeat the very purpose of actual imprisonment. (¶ 10)
Result
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 12574-12577 of 2022 against the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) judgment dated 03.08.2022 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 466, 467, 471 and 472 of 2021 dismissed.