Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. Darshan Singh - Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to Undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC. On 22.11.1998, during trial, he remained in Jail from 29.10.1986 to 22.11.1988. He was granted 10 months remission of the bail period. The grievance of the petitioner is that this 10 months remission of the bail period was deducted by the authorities from actual period undergone by him, which is unreasonable and mala fide. 2. The Petitioner by filing this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks the indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to add the bail period remission from 18.5.1994 to 1.11.1995 towards his actual undergone period and consider his case for premature release after granting all types of good conduct remissions as well as special remissions admissible to him. 3. I have heard Ms. Sarla Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suraksha Sharma, learned counsel for the State of Haryana. 4. Ms. Sarla Chaudhary contended that the petitioner had surrendered voluntarily, therefore, the period during which he remained on bail has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of extending the benefit of remissions. The learned counsel has also placed on record the instructions dated 28.9.1988 Annexure P.1 and instructions dated 4.2.1993, Annexure P.2 regarding premature release of life convict issued from time to time by the State in view of Article 161 of the Constitution of India and para 516-B of Jail Manual. The learned counel has relied on Satish Kumar Ahuja v. State of Haryana, 1998 (4) RCR 476. 5. To meet this argument, Ms. Suraksha Sharma, learned State counsel, contended that the convicts are not entitled to the benefit of Government remissions for the period they remained on bail and that these are available only to the convicts who are released on parole or furlough or who happened to be in jail during trial. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but I do not find force in it. The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents speaks volumes of the fact that the case of the petitioners is not at all covered under the circulars/orders in question, for the purpose of granting remissions to them. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but I do not find force in it. The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents speaks volumes of the fact that the case of the petitioners is not at all covered under the circulars/orders in question, for the purpose of granting remissions to them. In the circulars/orders of the State Government granting remissions to the convicts of the Haryana State, it is stipulated that the benefits of remission shall be available only to those prisoners who happened to be on parole/furlough on the date of grant of remission, or, who happened to be in jail on these dates. The petitioner was neither on parole nor on furlough, nor was he in jail during 1985. 1994 to 1.11.1995, instead he was on bail therefore, he is not entitled to the remission for the said period. 7. A convict is not eligible to remission during the period he is on bail or his sentence is temporarily suspended. This, the submission that the petitioner, who was temporarily released on bail, is entitled to get the remission earned during the period he remined in jail is not sustainable at all. In the result, this petition is dismissed.