Parole does not interrupt the period of detention and should be counted towards the total period of detention unless specified otherwise by the terms for grant of parole, rules, or instructions.

JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner seeks directions for treating the period spent on parole as part of sentence undergone by him. The petitioner's case is that he was convicted under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act vide judgment dated 25-1-1993 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 100,000/- in default, imprisonment for six months. The petitioner had challenged his conviction before this Court, but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with the said offence on 29-5-1991 and that he is in jail to date. The petitioner had preferred Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 1999 before the Apex Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 32-A of the said Act. The Apex Court held that section 32-A of the said Act insofar as it completely debars the jurisdiction of the Court to suspend the sentence awarded to the convict under the Act, is unconstitutional. The Apex Court directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for parole and his prayer be considered and disposed of in accordance with the statutory provisions, if any, jail manual or Government instructions without implying section 32-A of the Act as a bar to consideration for prayer. In this judgment the Apex Court has considered the concept of “parole' in general as also rulings on the subject vis-a-vis section 32-A of the said Act. In this case judgment of the Apex Court in (State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh)1, 2000(3) S.C.C. 394 has been considered wherein concept of “parole' and furlough” had been considered and it was observed that the said two terms have acquired different meanings in the statute with varied results. In this judgment, the Haryana Good Conduct Proceedings (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and also terminology used in the Delhi Jail Manual was considered. It was pointed out by the Apex Court that parole is a form of temporary release from custody which does not suspend the sentence or period of detention, but provides conditional release from custody and change the mode of undergoing the sentence.

2. In (Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and others)2, 2000(3) S.C.C. 409, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court by majority judgment, has been held that the judgment in (Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan)3, 1987(3) S.C.C. 347 does not lay down the correct law because the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment as also two other judgments in (Harish Makhija v. State of U.P.)4, 1987(3) S.C.C. 432 and (Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan)5, 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 480 have been very widely stated. In this judgment, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has examined the concept and effect of the parole more particularly in a preventive detention case. Relying upon the judgment in State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (supra), it has been pointed out by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that, “parole is a form of temporary release from custody, which does not suspend the sentence or period of detention, but provides conditional release from custody and changes the mode of undergoing the sentence. It is pertinent to note the following observations of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in para 30 which read as under:---

"30. Since release on parole is only a temporary arrangement by which a detenu is released for a temporary fixed period to meet certain situations, it does not interrupt the period of detention and, thus, needs to be counted towards the total period of detention unless the rules, instructions or terms for grant of parole, prescribe otherwise. The period during which parole is availed of is not aimed to extend the outer limit of the maximum period of detention indicated in the order of detention. The period during which a detenu has been out of custody on temporary release on parole, unless otherwise prescribed by the order granting parole, or by rules or instructions, has to be included as a part

Click Here to Read the rest of this document