Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Temporary Release on Parole Cannot Be Counted Towards Actual Sentence: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal position on the counting of parole period for life convicts seeking premature release, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, has pronounced a landmark judgment. The Court held that the period of temporary release on parole should not be included while calculating the actual sentence served by life convicts.

The case, titled Gurnam Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, was reserved for judgment on November 9, 2023, and the verdict was pronounced on November 30, 2023. The petitioner, Gurnam Singh, serving a life sentence since 2001 for crimes under Sections 302, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, sought his premature release based on the 1991 policy of the Government of Punjab.

Justice Gupta, in his judgment, clarified, “The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has also to be rejected in view of the decision of this Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah (supra). The Constitution Bench has clearly held that though ordinarily the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole needs to be counted towards the total period of detention but this condition can be curtailed by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of grant of parole.”

The Court’s decision heavily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, where it was established that parole periods are not to be counted towards the total period of detention, unless specified otherwise by law.

In this case, Singh argued that he had served the required actual sentence under the 1991 policy when considering the remission period. However, the Court found that upon excluding his parole period, the actual sentence served fell short of the policy’s requirements.

Date of Decision: November 30, 2023

Gurnam Singh VS State of Punjab and others    

Similar News