Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala High Court

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    

Latest Legal News