Latest news with #PunjabGoodConductofPrisoners(TemporaryRelease)Act
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC 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.'
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
In Punjab, parole must be deducted from total sentence, not actual term: HC
Chandigarh: Setting aside the Punjab govt formula of 2020, which excludes the period of parole of a convict from the actual sentence, 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. The HC was of the view that release of a prisoner on parole serves a specific purpose and is subject to conditions. "It goes unsaid that reformation and deterrence, especially in cases as severe as murder, must go hand in hand. It is mandatory to meet the minimum benchmark for actual sentences, in terms of the applicable policy, by serving that period in prison. Thus, the time spent on parole shall be deducted from the total sentence, as it also includes remissions earned during that period," the HC clarified. The HC further said that the formula prescribed in the meeting dated July 16, 2020, is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. "It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence. Actual sentence shall only mean the real time spent by a prisoner in the prison premises," the HC held. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No more boring Zoom lessons. Learn Hebrew differently! Citizen Cafe Book Now Undo Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by Rupinder Singh. He sought directions to quash the order dated Oct 30, 2024, passed by the Punjab govt through which the case of the petitioner for premature release was rejected. The petitioner was convicted and awarded life sentence by the sessions court Hoshiarpur on Aug 11, 2014, in a murder case registered in Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur in 2013. After completing the requisite sentence, the petitioner moved an application for premature release under the policy dated July 8, 1991. His counsel argued that the petitioner was in custody since 2013. The case of the petitioner falls under category 'C' of the applicable policy, which requires him to complete 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence to be eligible for premature release. However, the petitioner already underwent over 10 years in actual custody and, including remission, completed over 14 years of sentence. The petitioner also enjoyed the concession of parole, which was wrongly deducted from the actual sentence as opposed to the total sentence, based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962. However, his plea was objected to by the state of Punjab on the grounds that the petitioner does not meet the condition of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence, as stipulated by the policy dated July 8, 1991. After hearing all the parties, the HC in its order released on Friday quashed the order dated Oct 30, 2024, passed by the Punjab govt and ordered reassessment of the case of petitioner by subtracting the parole availed by him from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence within four weeks.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
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.'
