Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 – r. 335 – Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release – Held: r. 335 of the Rules, 2006 provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole shall be counted as remission of sentence – Once the period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
Parole – Object and purpose – discussed.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court HELD: 1. While considering the question/issue ‘Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release ?’, the object and purpose of parole is required to be taken into consideration. Parole is a conditional release. Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment. Duration of parole extends to one month. Parole is granted by the State Government. For parole, specific reason is required. Parole can be granted for number of times. [Para 5][1032-G]
2. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and taking the view that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment has heavily relied upon or considered Rule
335 of the Rules, 2006 which provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission of sentence ….”. Once the period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, as rightly observed and held by the High Court, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment. [Para 7.1][1033-B-D]
3. If the 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. This Court is of the firm view that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. [Para 10][1034-C-D]
Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC
409 : [2000] 1 SCR 945; Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 409 : [2000] 1 SCR 945 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.