Petitioner sought release claiming completion of sentence including parole periods. The Court rejected this arguing that the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner Act explicitly excludes parole from sentence computation, a provision upheld by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh.
Petitioner's claim for release based on parole deduction from sentence was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24779-2013 Date of Decision: 06.02.2014
Ravinder
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Ms. Neelam Nehra, Advocate/ Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
A letter sent by Ravinder son of Nand Lal was received in the office of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, which was treated as a Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
| Y | M D | |
|---|---|---|
| I. Undertrial period : 17-08-98 to 28-10-98 | 00 | 02 13 |
| 06-12-01 | ||
| II. Conviction period : 07-12-01 to 24-04-07 | ||
| 16-08-11 to 04-12-13 | 07 | 08 07 |
| Total | 07 | 10 20 |
| III Detail of absent from parole : | 00 | 00 00 |
| IV. Parole availed : 46 weeks (322 days) | (-)00 | 10 22 |
| V. Actual sentence undergone | 06 | 11 28 |
| VI. Details of other criminal cases | Nil | |
| VII. Details of other convicted cases | Nil |
Satyawan 2014.02.07 15:41 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-24779-2013
2
VIII. Detail of parole : Details of furlough : 27-04-02 to 09-06-02 = 06 weeks 21-03-05 to 12-04-05 = 03 weeks 1-10-02 to 30-10-02 = 04 weeks 09-04-07 to 24-04-07 = 02 weeks 20-04-03 to 12-06-03 = 06 weeks 20-07-12 to 04-08-12 = 02 weeks 26-09-03 to 25-10-03 = 04 weeks 11-04-13 to 26-04-13 = 02 weeks 16-03-04 to 28-04-04 = 06 weeks 16-09-04 to 15-10-04 = 04 weeks 19-10-05 to 17-11-05 = 04 weeks 25-07-06 to 23-08-06 = 04 weeks 04-01-12 to 02-02-13 = 04 weeks 10-01-13 to 01-02-13 = 03 weeks 14-07-13 to 22-07-13 = 0 1 weeks emergency parole
Total = 46 weeks
Satyawan 2014.02.07 15:41 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-24779-2013
3
observed that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of 'the Haryana Act' are not hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The observations made to this effect in para No.12 and 19 of the above judgment are reproduced as follows :-
“12. Thus, the Constitution Bench by majority decision clearly held that the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole is to be counted towards the total period of detention, unless it is otherwise provided by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole. (13) to (18) xx xx xx
19. We also do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution. By a valid legislative act the period of temporary release on parole has been denied while counting the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner. It cannot be said that such right of a prisoner has been taken away without due process of law. Consequently, these contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are rejected.”
06.02.2014 ‘Satyawan’
Satyawan 2014.02.07 15:41 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period of parole availed by a convict can be counted towards the total period of sentence for the purpose of release under Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Rele
Whether the Constitution of India mandates that parole periods must be counted towards the total sentence period despite statutory provisions excluding them.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶25
Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, 2002 (3) SCC 18 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravinder
State of Haryana
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
