High court strikes down Punjab formula for premature release of prisoners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that parole must be deducted from the total sentence, including remission, and not from the actual sentence, which covers only the time spent in custody while considering eligibility for premature release of prisoners. Setting aside the Punjab government's October 2024 order denying life convict Rupinder Singh's release, the court directed a fresh assessment of his case within four weeks.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who delivered the ruling on May 29, also struck down the state's 2020 formula that excluded parole from the actual sentence. 'The formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962… It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence,' the court said.
The court found the state's formula—actual custody during undertrial plus custody post-conviction, minus the parole period—lacked legal backing and contradicted the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act states: 'The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.'
Interpreting this, Justice Brar clarified, 'Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars. and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict. Thus, the quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number…Total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him.'
The court held that Singh's case must be considered under the 1991 premature release policy, which requires 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years, including remission. Citing Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(9) SCC 598, the court said, 'The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law… It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction.'
The court also referred to Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 504, noting, '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 the grant of parole.' As no such legal change had been made, the court said Section 3(3) remained applicable.
Rupinder Singh was convicted of murder on August 11, 2014, by the Sessions Court in Hoshiarpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was upheld by the high court on October 3, 2019, and by the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019.
Seeking premature release under the 1991 policy, Singh's case was considered by the court on January 16, 2024. The state later challenged this, and on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed it to file a review petition. The key issue was whether over three years of Singh's parole should be deducted from his actual time served or from the total sentence. The state's 2020 clarification favoured the former, delaying his eligibility.
Singh's lawyers, Nandan Jindal and Tushar Sabherwal, argued that the 2020 clarification was applied retrospectively and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They cited Jai Kishan @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab (2022) and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi vs. State of Punjab (2022). Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj, appearing for the state, relied on Rohan Dhungat vs. State of Goa (2023 AIR SC 265), but the court held it was not applicable due to differences in state laws.
Justice Brar noted, 'The objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature… Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Dhule police register case against 3 in unaccounted Rs 1.8 crore seizure from govt rest house
Nashik: The Dhule police have filed charges against three people, including suspended state legislature desk officer Kishor Patil. The case involves the discovery of Rs 1.8 crore in cash at Room No. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 102 of Gulmohar Govt Rest House in Dhule on May 21, where the booking was made under Patil's name. The charges under section 124 of the Maharashtra Police Act have been filed against Kishor Patil, Raju Mogre, and an unnamed individual. Dhule SP Srikant Dhivre said, "The case under section 124 of the Maharashtra Police Act will be investigated for necessary legal action against whoever is concerned. Soon after the cash was found in the room of the Govt Rest House, an inquiry was initiated. The case registered is based on the inquiry that has been underway since May 22. " The relevant section of the Act deals with unexplained possession of property, carrying penalties of up to one year's imprisonment and a fine up to Rs 5,000. Following reliable intelligence, Dhule police searched Room 102 of the govt rest hon May 21, discovering Rs 1.84 lakh in cash. Former MLA Anil Gote, a Shiv Sena (UBT) politician, protested outside demanding an investigation of the unclaimed money. He noted the room was registered to Kishor Patil, who serves as a private personal assistant to Arjun Khotkar, the head of the state assembly committee. The 11-member panel, including Khotkar, visited Dhule on May 21 to review public fund usage. Patil faced immediate suspension following the cash seizure. A senior Dhule police officer indicated two others were linked to the discovered money. While currently charged under section 124 of the Maharashtra Police Act, additional charges may be added as the investigation progresses. Dhule City SDPO Rajkumar Upase is leading the investigation.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Property of peddler worth ₹24 lakh seized
Continuing their crackdown on drug peddling, the Jamalpur police have seized property worth ₹24.37 lakh belonging to an alleged drug smuggler. The accused has been identified as Nitin Pahwa alias Bunty, a resident of Laxmi Nagar in Haibowal Kalan. According to inspector Balwinder Kaur, station house officer of Jamalpur police station, a case under Sections 21, 61, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was registered against Pahwa on November 14, 2017. During the investigation, it was found that he had used proceeds from drug trafficking to purchase property valued at ₹24.37 lakh.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Trader held for availing ITC worth Rs 15.19 cr by submitting fake invoices
A textile trader has been arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in Surat for allegedly submitting fake invoices of Rs 100 crore to avail Input Tax Credit worth Rs 15.19 crore. According to DGGI sources, the accused, arrested on Friday has been identified as Yatin Dudhat, a resident of Varachha, who runs textile business by the name of Dudhat International in Surat. Dudhat allegedly received fake invoices from different firms without any supply of goods. The officials had earlier raided his office and business place in Surat and recovered several incriminating documents. Dudhat has violated the provision of sections of 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017, an official said. Sources said that the name of Dudhat cropped during a probe following the arrest of Chetan Patoliya, proprietor of Kunj Fashion, Surat. On Saturday, Yatin Dudhat was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate court of Judge R M Kalotara. He was sent to 14 days judicial custody at Surat Central jail by court. DGGI sources added, they had carried out a search operation at Kunj Fashion, on May 2. During investigation, the officials found Patoliya's involvement in availing the Input Tax Credit of around Rs 12 crores, with the help of fake invoices of sales and purchase of goods. Patoliya in his statements to DGGI had mentioned that he had passed on (sold) ITC to different firms – including Infinity Impex, Salton Impex, Manya Overseas and Shreeji exports, without supply of goods – in Surat. The DGGI is currently carrying out a probe in this case and are collecting the details of the firms that had received ITC from Kunj Fashion and Dudhat International.
