Balkar Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—All the above mentioned cases involve a common question of law. In all these cases a direction has been prayed by the petitioners to the Respondents for their pre-mature release while not deducting the period of temporary parole which they enjoyed during the period of their sentence. All the petitioners are undergoing the imprisonment awarded to them for various offences by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. During the period of their sentence the petitioners were released temporarily by the respondents from time to time. The period of parole which varies in each case, has not been added to the period actual sentence undergone by the petitioners for which they were sentenced. This action of the respondents is obviously contrary to the various pronouncements of this Court and respondents were obliged to add the period which the petitioners have enjoyed on parole during their period of imprisonment while counting the actual sentence undergone by the petitioners. As this view has been re-affirmed and reiterated by this Court in various pronouncements, it will be appropriate to refer to some of the following decisions at this stage:-

Maru Ram and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , Life Convict Karam Singh v. State ofH.P. (1994) 2 R CR 28, Faqir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Crl. M. No. 4258-M of 1995 decided on 8-5-1995, and Criminal M. No. 13528-M of 1995, Virsa Singh v. State of Haryana decided on 20-11-1995.

The respondents are stated to have not forwarded the case of the petitioners for pre-mature release to the competent authority for its decision because according to the respondents, the petitioners have not completed their actual period of sentence awarded to them. As already noted this approach of the respondents is not legally sustainable. It is directed that the respondents would considerthe case of the petitioners if otherwise eligible and would forward the same for decision by the competent authority while taking into account the period of parole enjoyed by each of the petitioners towards the period of actual sentence undergone by the petition-, ers. The respondents shall forward and consider the cases of the petitioners within six weeks from today. The order so passed would be communicated to the respective petitioners within one week from the date the order is passed. With these observations the above mentioned petitions are disposed of.