Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1386 (RAJ)

Mangu Singh v. State

2013-07-31

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned Public Prosecutor and considered the parole writ petition. 2. The instant parole writ petition has been sent by the prisoner Mangu Singh from jail. The prayer which has been made in the parole writ petition is that the petitioner after having been convicted for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is undergoing sentence at the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The prisoner has mentioned that he was granted emergent parole of 15 days by the District Collector, Nagaur for aiding in the treatment of his wife. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Kishor Singh vs. State being S.B. Parole Writ Petition No. 9475/2011 decided on 14.11.20011, the petitioner has submitted that the period of emergent parole granted to him deserves to be counted towards his sentence. 3. The state has submitted a reply and a specific plea has been taken in the reply that the emergent parole was granted to the petitioner convict for a period of 15 days each on two occasions i.e. from 24.11.2012 to 8.12.2012 and 10.5.2013 to 24.5.2013. Referring to Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules of 1958'), it has been mentioned that only those periods of parole which have been granted under Rule 9 can be treated as imprisonment served out by the prisoner and any other type of parole is to be considered as sentence suspended. It has been stated in the reply that since the petitioner was granted emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958, therefore, the said period has to be treated as sentence suspended and cannot be counted towards the imprisonment suffered by the convict. 4. Considered the grounds mentioned in the writ petition, the statement made in the reply and the order passed by this Court in Parole Writ Petition No. 9475/2011 as well as the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1958. The Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court whilst considering the case of the prisoner Kishor Singh directed that all the paroles period granted to the prisoner shall be counted towards his imprisonment. Reliance was placed by the Hon'ble Single Bench on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India & Ors. ( AIR 2000 SC 1023 ). Reliance was placed by the Hon'ble Single Bench on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India & Ors. ( AIR 2000 SC 1023 ). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case observed as under:- "The period during which a detenue has been out of custody on temporary release on parole, unless otherwise prescribed by the order granting parole, or by rules, or instructions, has to be included as a part of the total period of detention because of the very nature of parole." 5. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the very decision of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (supra) has held that the period of parole shall be counted towards the imprisonment suffered subject to the exception of any provision under Rules or any instruction being otherwise. Whilst considering the case of Kishor Singh (supra), the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Single Bench. Relevant portion of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 reads as below:- "9. Parole period:-A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one fourth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the (State Committee) for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned: the Chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence." 6. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958 which is relevant for the consideration of the instant parole writ petition reads as under:- "12. Parole period regarded as imprisonment served.-The period for which a prisoner stays on parole under Rule 9, without violating the conditions laid down for the purpose, shall be treated as imprisonment served by him. All other kinds of parole shall be treated as sentence suspended." 7. Thus, the rule specifically provides that only those paroles which have been granted to the prisoner under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 shall be treated as imprisonment served by him. All other paroles have been specifically categorised as sentence suspended. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted emergent parole on account of illness of his wife. Such parole was granted to him presumably under Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958. Therefore, the said period of emergent parole cannot be counted towards the imprisonment suffered by the prisoner in view of the bar contained in Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah (supra) the entitlement of the prisoner to have the parole period counted towards the imprisonment is subject to any exception provided in the Rule, which run to the contrary. Rule 12 specifically bars the consideration of the emergent parole towards the imprisonment suffered and is to be treated as sentence suspended. It is, therefore, obvious that the relief as prayed for by the prisoner in the parole writ petition that the period of emergent parole which was granted to him for his wife's treatment should be counted towards his period of sentence cannot be accepted. A careful reading of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Single Bench in the case of Kishor Singh (supra) reveals that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Single Bench, and therefore, the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah (reproduced supra) shall hold field thereby dis-entitling the petitioner for the relief claimed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.