Parole does not interrupt the period of detention and should be counted towards the total period of detention unless prescribed otherwise.

Amar Dutt, J. - Petitioners Lalit Kumar and Luxmi Chand have filed this petition on the ground that as in the revision petition filed before this Court the sentence of 3 years which was imposed on them by the Sub Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala on 28.8.1998 while disposing of case F.I.R. No. 297, dated 7.7.1985 under Sections 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code, was reduced to two years, if the period for which they remained on parole is counted as a part of the sentence, they then are entitled to be released from custody on 7.6.2000 but they apprehend that the respondents will not release them as according to them the period which has been spent by the petitioners on parole cannot be counted as part of the sentence.

2. Notice of this petition was issued to Advocate General, Haryana and Shri Vijay Dahiya appearing on behalf of the State is unable to dispute the fact that according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah etc. v. Union of India & others, JT 2000(2) SC 230 and State of Haryana v. Nauratta Singh, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 294, the stand alleged to have been taken by the officials of the State cannot be sustained. In Sunil Fulchand Shahs case (supra), the Supreme Court held as under :-

"That parole does not interrupt the period of detention and, thus, that period needs to be counted towards the total period of detention unless the terms for grant of parole, rules or instructions, prescribe otherwise."

In view of above, the petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the period during which the petitioners remained on parole as a part of the sentence.

Petition allowed.