Action taken against inmate not double jeopardy: Bombay HC

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently held that if an inmate does not surrender in time after his parole period is over, registering an FIR as well as permanently removing his name from the remission register does not amount to double jeopardy.

The issue of jumping parole by prisoners is being dealt very seriously by jail authorities after Sajjad Mughal, the security guard convicted of killing Mumbai-based lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha, escaped after coming out of jail earlier this year.

Mughal was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on June 30, 2014 and in less than a year he requested to be released on parole on the ground of his mother’s illness. His parole request was okayed on February 24, 2016, and he sought an extension later, but this application was rejected and Mughal did not report back to jail and hence a case under section 224 (resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him.

The court drew this conclusion while hearing a petition filed by Baig Salim, a convict who overstayed 259 days after his parole period was over. Salim was granted 30 days’ parole from December 18, 2012, but he did not report back in time and an FIR was registered against him in Byculla police station on November 26, 2013 and he was arrested the same day.

Later, Salim moved the Bombay high court contending that he is being punished twice, which cannot be allowed because it is a case of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) (no person (convict) shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence) of the Constitution of India.