Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two criminal writ petitions filed by life convicts challenging the cutting of remission for late return from parole and seeking refund of deposits made as a condition for parole. In the first petition, the petitioner was granted parole for 7 days but returned 2 days late, leading to a proposal to cut remission by 2 days, which was approved by the Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the cutting of remission, noting that the petitioner violated parole conditions. However, the court found that the condition requiring a deposit of Rs.15,000 for grant of parole was illegal and without authority. The State was directed to refund the amount within four weeks. In the second petition, the petitioner was granted parole for 30 days but overstayed by 10 days, resulting in a proposal to cut remission by 10 days, approved by the Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the cutting of remission but also found the deposit condition illegal and ordered refund. The court emphasized that parole is a privilege and conditions must be lawful.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Parole - Cutting of Remission - Overstay on Parole - The petitioner was granted parole for 7 days but reported back 2 days late. The Superintendent proposed cutting remission by 2 days, which was approved by the Sessions Judge. The High Court held that the cutting of remission was justified as the petitioner violated the parole conditions by overstaying. (Paras 3-4) B) Prisons and Parole - Illegal Condition of Deposit - Refund - The petitioner was required to deposit Rs.15,000 as a condition for grant of parole. The High Court held that such a condition is illegal and without authority of law. The State was directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within four weeks. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cutting of remission by two days for late return from parole is valid, and whether the condition of depositing Rs.15,000 for grant of parole is legal and whether the deposit should be refunded.
Final Decision
The High Court upheld the cutting of remission for late return from parole but declared the condition of deposit as illegal and directed the State to refund the deposit amount to each petitioner within four weeks.
Law Points
- Parole is a privilege
- not a right
- remission can be cut for overstaying parole
- condition of deposit for parole is illegal
- refund of deposit ordered
