The Division Judge Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the Apex Court in the case of Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs The State of Goa & Ors Etc held that to consider actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that all the Petitioners were convicts undergoing life imprisonment and all of them were released on parole under the provisions of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2006”). Moreover, all the Petitioners applied for premature release under the Rules, 2006.
The State Sentence Revenue Board recommended premature release. The State Government sought the convicting Court's ruling on the Petitioners' premature release. Given the seriousness of the offence, the convicting Court ruled that the convicted should not be released prematurely. As a result, the State Government refused the Petitioners' premature release.
The writ petition was filed by the Petitioners before the High Court of Bombay challenging the State’s decision and it was held that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of the sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was contended that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release. It was also contended that even while on parole the Accused/Convicts can be said to be in custody / Judicial Custody and therefore, the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners also relied upon the judgments titled Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India, and Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Top Court observed 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 parole several times as there are no restrictions and it can be granted several times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.
It was noted that the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court dismissed all the special leave petitions.
Case Title: Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs The State of Goa & Ors Etc
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 4 SC
Coram: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Case No: Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 12574-12577 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Shri Siddharth Dave, Adv
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :