Parole Period Included in Actual Imprisonment: Punjab and Haryana High Court's Decision in Inderjit Singh @ Lada vs. State of Punjab

High Court directs the inclusion of parole period in the calculation of actual imprisonment for premature release under the 2011 Policy. In a significant ruling on July 2, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, directed that the time spent on parole should be counted as part of the actual imprisonment when considering premature release. This judgment, stemming from the case of Inderjit Singh @ Lada vs. State of Punjab and others, emphasized the consistency of legal applications and the importance of abiding by policies in effect at the time of conviction.

Inderjit Singh, also known as Lada, was convicted on January 14, 2012, for crimes under Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, and 149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. His conviction was affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 17, 2014, and further upheld by the Supreme Court on March 23, 2018​​. Seeking premature release under the Punjab Government's Policy dated August 8, 2011, Singh contended that his parole period should be included in the computation of his actual imprisonment. Despite his eligibility, his application was not processed, prompting legal action.

The court highlighted the necessity of applying the policy existing at the time of conviction, which in Singh's case, was the 2011 Policy. Justice Bedi noted, "The policy dated August 8, 2011, applied to the petitioner at the time of his conviction, mandates the inclusion of parole in the calculation of actual imprisonment"​​.

Justice Bedi emphasized that the 2020 meeting decision, which excluded the parole period from the calculation, could not be applied retrospectively to Singh's case. "Applying a new formula retrospectively would create inequality among similarly situated convicts," he stated, referencing the consistent approach taken in similar cases such as Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Harbans Singh vs. State of Punjab​​.

The court underscored the importance of equal application of laws, stating, "The provisions of the law must be applied equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied efficiently and transparently to obviate the grievance that the policy is being applied unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons"​​.

Justice Bedi's ruling drew from precedents and statutory interpretations, emphasizing that parole is a form of legal custody and should be counted in actual imprisonment. He referenced multiple judgments to assert that excluding parole from actual imprisonment calculations would be inconsistent with the principles of justice and the established legal framework.

The court's decision to include parole in the calculation of actual imprisonment for Inderjit Singh's premature release application reinforces the importance of consistent and fair application of policies. This ruling is expected to impact how parole periods are considered in similar cases, ensuring that convicts' rights are protected under the policies existing at the time of their convictions.

Date of Decision: July 2, 2024