Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed the state to file an affidavit explaining how it has included the parole period as part of the sentence on the basis of a circular. The circular issued by the state said that as per a HC order, the parole period was to be included in the sentence.
The petitioner clai-med that in view of the provision of rule 20 of Prisons Rules, such a circular was invalid and was done for the benefit of certain
prisoners. The government came out with a notification to include parole as part of sentence three months after the PIL was filed, based on which Sanjay Dutt was freed in April 2016.
A division bench comprising Justices Naresh Patil and Rajesh Ketkar was hearing a PIL filed by Rajan Parkar. The plea prayed that the amendment should be quashed.
Arguing the case for the petitioner, counsel N.N. Gawankar said that based on a 2001 Nagpur single bench order, the government had issued circulars in 2006 stating that parole period was included in sentence and should be extended to detainees.
However, the petitioner had challenged the same in October 2015. Even while the case was sub-judice, on December 1, 2015 the government came out with a notification confirming that parole period was to be considered as part of the sentence.
“The amendment to rule 20 was based on the circular and the notification was issued while the matter was sub-judice and hence the amendment should be quashed and the beneficiaries should be asked to complete their term,” argued Gawankar. He also referred to a December 9, 2015 observation of the bench of the then acting chief justice V M Kanade and justice Mohite Dere, which said that the prayer of the petitioner was an interesting question of law.
After hearing Gawankar’s arguments, the bench asked the state to explain how the amendments were effected based on the circular and kept the matter for hearing on November 28.
