Case title:
Rohan Dhungat vs. The State of Goa & Ors
Bench:
Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Parties:
Petitioner: Rohan Dhungat
Defendant: The State of Goa & Ors
Facts
- According to the case's factual foundation, all of the Petitioners were life-sentenced offenders who were all granted parole in accordance with the requirements of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 (hence referred to as the "Rules, 2006"). In addition, each Petitioner requested an early release under the Rules of 2006.
- Premature release was advised by the State Sentence Revenue Board. The State Government requested a decision from the convicting court about the petitioners' early release.
- The convicting Court decided that the convicted should not be released early due to the nature of the offence. The State Government consequently rejected the Petitioners' early release.
- The Petitioners filed a writ case before the High Court of Bombay contesting the State's decision, and it was decided that although taking into account 14 years of real incarceration for premature release, the period of parole is to be omitted from the period of the sentence.
Issues Raised
- Whether in determining that the period of parole is to be removed from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while taking into account 14 years of actual incarceration for premature release, it was argued that the High Court made a significant error.
- The basic question put forth for this Court's consideration is whether the period of parole should be excluded from the sentence under the Rules of 2006 while taking into account 14 years of actual incarceration for the purpose of premature release.
Agruments
- Shri Dave, erudite Senior Counsel for the various petitioners, adamantly contends that the Hon'ble High Court erred in interpreting Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 to conclude that because a time of parole is considered remission, it cannot be included in the calculation of a sentence.
- According to the argument, even when on parole, criminal defendants might be considered to be in custody or judicial custody, so the duration of parole must be taken into account when calculating the 14 years of real incarceration for the purpose of premature release.
- It is adamantly argued that the High Court's position is in direct conflict with this Court's rulings in the cases of Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana (para. 11) and Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (reported in (2000) 3 SCC 409 and 3 SCC 409, respectively).
- Shri Dave, the senior counsel for the original writ petitioners who are prisoners, further argues that even under Section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894, a prisoner is considered to be in custody when being transported to or from any prison in which he may be lawfully detained. As a result, the period of parole must be taken into account when calculating the actual period of imprisonment when taking into account 14 years of imprisonment.
- In light of the aforementioned arguments, it is hoped that the court will rule that the duration of parole should be taken into account when determining whether to grant an early release after serving 14 years in jail.
- It is necessary to take into account the intent and objective of conditional parole when pondering the aforementioned subject or issue. A conditional release is parole. In the event of brief incarceration, parole may be given. The length of parole is increased to one month. Government of the State grants parole. A specific justification is needed for parole. It is possible to receive parole multiple times.
- The question in the current instance, which is whether the term of parole is to be excluded from the duration of sentence while assessing 14 years of real incarceration for the purpose of premature release, is to be considered in light of the aforementioned information.
- The High Court heavily relied on or took into consideration Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006, which states that the period of release on furlough and parole, shall be counted as remission of sentence. When passing the contested judgement and order and taking the position that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while taking into account 14 years of actual imprisonment. Once the term of parole is to be considered a reduction in sentence, as the High Court correctly recognised and held, the period of parole must also be excluded from the duration of punishment when taking into account the 14 years of actual imprisonment.
- Now, with regard to the reliance made by the senior counsel for the various petitioners—convicts and prisoners—on the court's decision in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah, the said precedent shall not be applicable to the facts of the case at hand. It was a detenue case as defined by the COFEPOSA Act. Even in the aforementioned ruling, it is noted and decided that the duration of incarceration would not be automatically prolonged by any period of parole granted to the detainee unless the order of parole or regulations or instructions clearly state the opposite as a term and condition of parole.The term "imprisonment" is excluded from the computation of the term of parole in the current case. Parole is to be considered a remission of sentence, according to Rule 335.
- As a result, the case at hand's facts would exclude the application of the aforementioned judgement.When determining whether the period of parole should be excluded from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 when assessing 14 years of actual incarceration, the decision in this matter in the case of Avtar Singh likewise shall not be applicable to the facts of the case at hand.
- Now, as far as the petitioners' argument that even while on parole, inmates are considered to be in custody and that term should be counted toward actual incarceration, based on Section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894, the aforementioned is without merit. With regard to parole release, Section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894 shall not be relevant. If a prisoner is removed from a jail, he is presumed to have been imprisoned under Section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894. The same shall not, however, be relevant to parole release.
- Given the foregoing and the preceding arguments, all of these Special Leave Petitions are duly dismissed for the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
Therefore, if the prisoners' request that the period of parole be taken into account when calculating the 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, then any prisoner who may be influential could receive parole multiple times because there are no restrictions on how many times it can be granted. If the prisoners' request is approved, it could defeat the very goal and purpose of actual imprisonment. I firmly believe that the parole time must be disregarded when evaluating actual imprisonment. I wholeheartedly concur with the High Court's ruling on this point of view.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
