Parole Period Must Be Subtracted Only From Total Sentence | Actual Sentence Means Real Time Spent Behind Bars : Punjab And Haryana High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has held that the parole period availed by a convict shall only be deducted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence. The Court declared the formula prescribed in a State-level committee meeting dated 16.03.2020 as invalid and directed the competent authority to reassess the petitioner’s premature release application within four weeks, applying the correct interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.
The matter pertains to the petitioner, a convict serving a life sentence following a judgment by the Sessions Court, Hoshiarpur dated 11.08.2014. The conviction arose from FIR No.80 dated 10.08.2013 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 03.10.2019. A Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22.11.2019.
The petitioner applied for premature release under the Punjab Government’s policy dated 08.07.1991. A criminal writ petition was filed seeking a direction to consider his release, which the High Court disposed of on 16.01.2024, instructing the State to consider the matter within two months. The State of Punjab subsequently filed Special Leave Petition No.8076/2025 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court.
In line with the Supreme Court’s liberty, the State filed CRM-W-556-2025 seeking review of the order dated 16.01.2024. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed a new writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (CRWP-11354-2024), challenging the order dated 30.10.2024, through which his premature release application had been rejected.
The State contended that the petitioner did not meet the requirement of completing 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence under the 1991 policy. Relying on an affidavit dated 23.05.2025 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Jails, the State submitted that parole had to be deducted from the actual sentence as per a clarification issued in a State-level committee meeting held on 16.03.2020. The revised formula calculated actual sentence as the sum of custody during undertrial and post-conviction periods, minus parole.
The custody certificate (Annexure R-1) submitted by the State showed:
- Undertrial custody: 1 year and 1 day
- Custody after conviction: 10 years, 8 months, 25 days
- Parole availed: 3 months, 1 day
- Furlough availed: 2 months, 17 days
- Actual custody after conviction (excluding parole and overstay): 7 years, 5 months, 24 days
- Actual undergone period: 8 years, 5 months, 25 days
- Earned remission: 7 years, 10 months, 20 days
- Total sentence including remission: 16 years, 4 months, 15 days
The State further cited the Supreme Court decision in Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, AIR (2023) SC 265, stating that including parole in actual imprisonment would allow influential prisoners to secure frequent parole and reduce actual imprisonment unfairly.
The petitioner, opposing the State’s position, argued that he had served more than 10 years in actual custody and completed over 14 years including remission. He asserted that the parole period had been wrongly deducted from the actual sentence rather than the total sentence. The petitioner cited various judgments to contend that parole should not be excluded from actual custody retroactively, and that the clarification issued in 2020 lacked statutory backing.
Citing cases including Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024) 9 SCC 598, State of Haryana v. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690, Jai Kishan @ Bhola v. State of Punjab (CRWP-7180-2021), and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi v. State of Punjab (CRWP-2957-2022), the petitioner argued that the policy applicable at the time of conviction should govern his case, and retrospective application of later clarifications violated his rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court recorded: "It is no longer res integra that the policy in force at the time of conviction of the applicant shall apply when his case for premature release is under consideration." Referring to the 1991 policy, the Court stated: "Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars."
The Court further recorded: "Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962 only talks about parole not being counted towards assessing the quantum of total sentence, which must be interpreted to mean that parole ought to be subtracted from it."
Critiquing the 2020 clarification, the Court stated: "The clarification dated 16.03.2020, made about three decades post issuance of policy dated 08.07.1991 has no statutory backing and the same cannot override and supersede the Act of 1962."
The Court addressed the meaning of 'actual' and 'total' as follows: "The Cambridge Dictionary defines 'total' as an aggregate of smaller parts while 'actual' is defined as something that is existing in fact. The quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number, which neither increases nor decreases by release of an accused on parole."
Referring to statutory interpretation principles, the Court quoted: "The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature... The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there."
On parole and custody, the Court stated: "Parole is a form of temporary release from custody... it does not suspend the sentence or the period of detention, but provides conditional release from custody and changes the mode of undergoing the sentence."
Further, the Court recorded: "Release on parole does not render the prisoner a free agent. Such release serves a specific purpose and is subject to conditions, under constant supervision of the concerned authority."
Discussing remission, the Court observed that remission can be earned even during parole: "It indicates that he continues to stay in notional custody, making him bound by the fetters that come with it."
Rejecting the applicability of Rohan Dhungat, the Court stated: "The facts and the Rules dealt with therein are clearly distinguishable from the matter at hand."
The Court declared that the formula prescribed in the meeting dated 16.03.2020 was invalid. It held that deducting the parole period from the actual sentence was contrary to law. The Court clarified that actual sentence shall only include the real time spent in prison, and parole shall only be subtracted from the total sentence.
Accordingly, the review application filed by the State was dismissed. The criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of premature release was allowed. The Court set aside the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the competent authority and directed the said authority to reassess the petitioner’s case for premature release.
The Court directed that the reassessment must be done by subtracting the parole period from the total sentence, not from the actual sentence. The authority was given four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment to carry out the reassessment.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sabherwal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Rupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number: CRM-W-556-2025 in CRWP-2705-2023; CRWP-11354-2024 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
[Read/Download order]
