1. Convicts seeking premature release challenged the exclusion of parole periods from the 14-year actual imprisonment requirement under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Rohan Dhungat etc. – Appellants
Versus
State of Goa & Ors etc. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 12574-12577 of 2022 (@ Diary No. 29535 of 2022)
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Premature release – For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, period of Parole is to be excluded.
Premature release – For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, period of Parole is to be excluded.
Subject
Prisoner Rights - Parole
Act Referred
Headnote
Prisons Act, 1894 – Section 55 – Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 – Rule 335 – Premature release – Exclusion of period of Parole from actual period of imprisonment – For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, period of Parole is to be excluded – Once period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, period of Parole is also required to be excluded from period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment. (Paras 7 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 466 of 2021, 467 of 2021, 471 of 2021 and 472 of 2021 dated 03.08.2022, by which 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, original writ petitioners have preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.
Findings of Court:
If 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 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.
Result : Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended that parole constitutes judicial custody and should be included in actual imprisonment, citing the Prisons Act, 1894 and judicial precedents. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that Rule 335 treats parole as remission and Rule 2(21) excludes parole from the computation of imprisonment. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 )
4. For the purpose of calculating actual imprisonment for premature release, periods of parole are excluded as they are counted as remission of sentence. (Para 10 )
5. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to exclude parole from the period of actual imprisonment. (Para 11 )
6. Does the period of parole count towards the actual imprisonment required for premature release under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006?
No. Under Rule 335, parole is counted as remission of sentence, and Rule 2(21) specifies that the term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of the term of parole. (Para 6 , 10 )
7. Does Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894, make a prisoner on parole deemed to be in custody?
No. Section 55 applies when a prisoner is taken out from any prison but is not applicable to releases on parole. (Para 9 )
8. What is the policy justification for excluding parole from the calculation of actual imprisonment?
Excluding parole prevents influential prisoners from obtaining frequent parole to artificially meet the actual imprisonment requirement, which would otherwise defeat the object and purpose of actual imprisonment. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 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.
2. That the original petitioners are all convicts undergoing life imprisonment. That all of them were released on parole under the provisions of Goa Prisons Rules , 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2006”). That all the original petitioners applied for premature release under the Rules, 2006. The State Sentence Revenue Board recommended for premature release. The State Government sought opinion of the convicting Court on the premature release of the petitioners. The convicting Court opined that the convicts shall not be released prematurely considering the gravity of offence. Therefore, the State Government rejected the premature release of the petitioners. The convicts – original writ petitioners, therefore, preferred the respective writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay challenging the State’s decision to not considering their case for premature release. Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the convicts have completed 14 years in custody and therefore, as such were entitled for premature release. 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 imprisonment for the purpose of premature release. Taking into consideration the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 which provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission of sentence ….” the High Court by impugned judgment and order has 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. As the respective convicts – original writ petitioners excluding period of parole did not complete 14 years of actual imprisonment, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed the respective writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present petitions.
3. 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 of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
3.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Dave learned Senior Counsel for the respective petitioners that the Hon’ble High Court has erred in relying on the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 to hold that since period of release on parole is counted as remission, the same cannot be counted as part of sentence.
3.2. It is submitted that even while on parole the accused /convicts can be said to be in custody/judicial custody and therefore, period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
3.3. It is vehemently submitted that as such the view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India reported in (2000) 3 SCC 409 as well as in the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 3 SCC 409 (para 11).
3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Dave le
