Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Vikas Bharti - Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2755 of 2017
Decided On : 03-01-2018
parole - grant of parole - IPC Section 376(2)(g), 506(b), M.P. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 Section 31-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, currently in jail serving life imprisonment, sought parole. They had been denied the benefit of suspension of sentence and were previously granted parole as per the Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985 and the M.P. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. The respondents declined their recent application due to an interim order by the Apex Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were previously granted parole but were denied the benefit after an interim order by the Apex Court restrained the State Governments from exercising their power of remission to life convicts. The court held that the period of parole is always included in the sentence and that the grant of parole is governed under Section 31-A of the M.P. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to parole despite serving life imprisonment and being denied the benefit of suspension of sentence due to an interim order by the Apex Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 31-A of the M.P. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 and the Apex Court's decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others (Supra) to determine that the period of parole is always included in the sentence and that the grant of parole is separate from remission.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of parole in accordance with law.
Shri Vivek Rusia, J.
The petitioners who are in Jail at present have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent to consider their case for grant of parole.
2. The petitioners are undergoing a punishment of life imprisonment because of their conviction under Section 376(2)(g), 506(b) and 376(2)(g) of IPC, vide judgment dated 15.06.2013.
3. Against the said conviction a Criminal Appeal No. 887/2013 is still pending before this Court. The petitioners have been denied the benefit of suspension of sentence i.e. bail and they are in jail since the year 2012. During this period, the petitioners were extended the benefit of parole twice as per the provisions of the Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985 and the M.P. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
4. In the year 2014, the petitioners were granted parole three times and in the year 2015 they were granted for one time as per law. The petitioners again submitted an application for grant of parole but vide letter dated 08.10.2015, the respondents have declined due to interim order granted by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48/2014 dated 23.07.2015, hence, the present petition before this Court.
5. After No. ice, the respondents have filed return by submitting that the petitioner are suffering life imprisonment in which No. remission is permissible. The Constitutional Bench has decided the reference case which is reported in by remanding the matter back for further direction by the three Judges Bench and same has No. been decided so far, therefore, the petitioners are No. entitled for the parole.
6. The contention of Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners may No. be entitled for remission because they are undergoing life sentence but the grant of parole is altogether different from remission. By interim order dated 23.07.2015, the Apex Court has restrained the State Government for exercising their power of remission to life convicts. The period of parole is always included in the sentence. The grant of parole is governed under Section 31 -A of the M.P. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
7. It is No. disputed that the petitioners were getting the benefit of parole. They have been denied the said benefit after interim order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others (Supra). By the said order, the State Governments were restrained from exercising their power of remission to life convicts. The Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48/2014 in which the interim order was passed has finally been decided by the Apex Court on 02.12.2015 and same is reported in (2016)7 SCC 1 in which the Apex Court has held that imprisonment of life means till the end of conviction of life with or without any scope of remission.
8. In case of Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000(8) SCC 437, the Apex Court has held that parole does No. amounts suspension, remission or commutation of sentence & Section 32(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does No. takes away the right of parole of a convict and also the power of the authorities to grant the parole.
9. By interim order dated 23.07.2015, the Apex Court has restrained the State Government for exercising their power of remission to life convicts but period of parole is always included in the period of sentence, therefore, if the life convicts are released on parole, their sentenced would No. be reduced. Section 31 - A of the Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985 clearly provides that the period of leave of prisoner under sub-section (1) shall count towards the total period of his sentence. Section 31 -A is reproduced below:
"31-A. Grant of leave to Prisoners - (1) Subject to the provisions to this part and to such conditions as may be prescribed, the State Government or any authority to which the State Government may delegate its powers in this behalf may grant leave to any prisoner who has been sen
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
