ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the aforementioned case, the petitioner-convict was convicted in the State of Haryana for the offences under Section 302/34 of IPC and was sentenced to Life Imprisonment by the Trial Court.

 Later, the petitioner convict was released on emergency/temporary parole by the High- Powered Committee, constituted as per the directions issued by this Court in SWM (C) No. 1/2020, due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Now, the petitioner-convict was asked to surrender himself to the statutory authorities, as for the completion of his actual imprisonment. 

To this the petitioner-convict has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing or setting aside the decision of the High-Powered Committee, which stated that the period of emergency/interim parole shall not be included in the period of sentence of the convict prisoner.

ISSUE:

Before the Apex Court the following issue was raised:

Whether the petitioner-convict who has been released on parole in accordance with the decision of the High-Powered Committee, constituted as per the orders passed by this Court in SWM (C) No. 1/2020, such parole period shall be counted towards the total period of sentence of the convict – prisoner or, not?

ARGUMENTS:

Appellant’s Argument: In the impugned case the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant argued that since the petitioner convict was released on parole in pursuance of the decision of the High-Powered Committee and not through any application made by him, he couldn’t be asked to surrender as the court was directed in subsequent orders that the convicts who were released on parole by the High-Powered Committee couldn’t be asked to surrender until further orders. Also, the committee remained silent as to whether include the period of parole towards the period of sentence or not. Additionally, the Ld. Counsel also pointed out the fact that there are certain states that include the period of parole towards the period of sentence of the convict.

In furtherance to this, he also argued that if this period of parole is not counted towards the period of sentence, then his period of parole would also extend as if the petitioner convict would not have been undergone the parole pursuant to the decision of the High-Powered Committee and would have been undergone his punishment then after certain period he would have been entitled for remission, which was thus unfair and detrimental to the petitioner.

Thus, prayed for the writ to be issued. 

Respondent’s Argument: The Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988 the period of parole should not be included towards the period of sentence of the convict-prisoner. Also, the committee in the minutes of the meeting specifically observed that no specific direction is needed to be issued regarding the counting of parole period towards the period of the sentence of the convict.

In this regard, the counsel cited the case of Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc. (Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 12574-77/2022): (2023 SCC OnLine SC 16), holding therein that the period of parole shouldn’t be included in the period of sentence. In the case of Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18, the court tested the constitutional validity of Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988 and perceived that the period of parole can be denied while counting the actual sentence that the convict has undergone. The same was observed in the case of the State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394 too.

Thus, for the above-mentioned cases and facts it can be concluded that the decision of the committee of not including parole period towards period of sentence was in par with the statutory provisions.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court, consciously stated that since the matter is related to the State of Haryana, thus the statutory provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 would prevail, and according to the Section 3(3) of that Act parole period should not be counted towards the total period of the sentence. The bench also noted that the committee has closely observed that no specific direction is to be made regarding the counting of parole period towards the period of sentence rather it needs to be decided by the authorities based on the statutory provisions.

The bench upholding the constitutional validity of Section 3(3) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, cited the cases of Avtar Singh (Supra) and Mohinder Singh (Supra), and commented that in both the period of parole should not be included towards the period of the sentence of the convict. 

Citing a relevant paragraph from the case of Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors., the bench explained as to why the parole period should not be included in the total period of actual imprisonment, the paragraph is as follows:

“10. 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. We are of the firm view that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court holding so.” 

After considering the above cases and facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed an order leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner convict, and continuation of his sentence of life imprisonment subject to any rule/policy in respect of remission and has excluded the period of his parole from the period of his actual imprisonment.

REFERENCE:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171069642/?type=print

This article is written by Agrima Singh of University of Lucknow, intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin