Judgment : Per P. K. MISRA, J. 1. Thewife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition to direct the Respondent to produce her husband, viz., Dagu @ Thiagu @ Sekar, who is Convict No.9, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. Head P. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and M. Babu Muthu Meeran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. 3. The detenu was convicted in S.C.No. 133/1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Subsequently, the detenu had filed Crl.A.No. 246 of 1990, wherein, by judgment dated 3.3.1999, the learned Single Judge, while upholding the order of conviction, reduced the sentence from 10 years R.I. to 5 years R.I. At that stage, the learned Single Judge had observed as follows: “...The accused is entitled to remission of sentence as per the Government Orders which came into force after the date of judgment till today. The accused was in custody for some period. The period already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Criminal Penal Code. The accused is directed to undergo the rest of the sentence if any after remitting the sentence as per the Government Orders referred to above. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to commit the accused to undergo the rest of the sentence if any after remitting the sentence as per the Government Orders referred to above. The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to commit the accused to undergo the rest of the sentence if any after emitting the sentence as per the Government Orders.” Subsequently, the detenu was taken into custody and he is now serving the sentence in Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai. At this stage, an Application was filed by the Petitioner seeking for the period of custody of the detenu for the purpose of obtaining remission. Such information is available in the typed-set-of-papers (Page No.15), which indicates that the detenu was in custody, while the investigation was going on between 3.4.1990 to 12.4.1990 for a period of 10 days. Thereafter, after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Trial Court, the detenu was in custody from 10.9.1999 to 17.5.2000 for a period of 250 days till the time of grant of bail by the High Court. Thereafter, after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Trial Court, the detenu was in custody from 10.9.1999 to 17.5.2000 for a period of 250 days till the time of grant of bail by the High Court. After the disposal of the bail application by the High Court, he was again taken into custody on 14.7.2006 and he is continuing as such till now. In the above background the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed stating that as per the observation made by the learned Single Judge, he remission granted by the Government should be calculate for the period from 3.4.1990 till 3.3.1999 and if such remission is granted for the aforesaid period, after taking into account the period of remission, the period of five years R.I would be over. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioners representation dated 10.3.2007 was not considered by the Jail Authorities on the basis of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.409, Home (Prisons)/2002 dated 15.5.2002, which would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, we are unable to uphold the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In G.O.Ms.No. 409, Home (Prisons)/2002 dated 15.5.2002 and the proceedings of the Director General of Prisons in Lr.No. 70106/PS 1/02 dated 30.5.2002 special remission allowed under general pardon is not applicable to prisoners on bail. It is obvious that the remission would be available only to the prisoner, who is actually in custody, after the judgment is pronounced. At any rate, when the prisoner is on bail, either before the conclusion of the trial or after conviction and sentence, such period can never be considered for the purpose of granting remission. 6. Holding that benefit of Remission Notification is not available to the convict, who was remained on bail and who has not served substantial part of sentence, in State of Haryana v. Nauratta Singh AIR 2000 SC 1179 : (2000) 3 SCC 514 : (2000) MLJ (Crl) 474 the Supreme Court has held as under: “.... 18. The clear fallacy of the approach made by the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. 18. The clear fallacy of the approach made by the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. An accused was tried for an offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. During trial period he was allowed to remain on bail and the trial prolonged up to, say 3 years. Finally the Court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for three years. Should not the convicted person go to jail at all on the premise that he was on bail for three years and is hence entitled to remission of that period: 19. Yet another illustration can be shown by stretching the above illustration a little further. If the aforesaid convicted person filed an appeal and got his sentence suspended by the Appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence after a period of 3 years, is he entitled to claim that he need not go to jail at all as he was on bail for more than 3 years during the post conviction stage alsoe If it is to be held that he is entitled to such remission, we are afraid, criminal justice system would be reduced to a mockery. The absurdity of the claim of the respondent can thus be demonstrated. …” 7. Referring to Nauratta Singhs case in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 3703 : (2001) 8 SCC 306 the Supreme Court had held that the period of remission granted by the Government under any Remission Notification, the period during which an accused person was no bail cannot be taken into account. It was further held that the Government Notification remitting sentence cannot be taken advantage by the accused on bail. 8. Applying the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition. The Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.