Parole Period Must Only Be Subtracted From Total Sentence, Not From Actual Jail Time: High Court Declares Punjab Govt's Formula Invalid

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared the formula issued by the Punjab Government to calculate the conviction period in case of premature release as invalid, observing that parole period should only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual time spent in jail.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence. Actual sentence shall only mean the real time spent by a prisoner in the prison premises."

The Court was hearing two petitions including a murder convict's plea seeking quashing of order, vide which case of the petitioner for premature release was rejected.

It was contended by the petitioner that the parole period was wrongly being subtracted from the total sentence (Total sentence= Actual undergone + Remission – Parole) by the competent authority, for the purposes of premature release.

As per reply by way of affidavit dated 23.05.2025 of Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Jails, Punjab, it was subsequently realized that the same was based on incorrect interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Therefore, a meeting of the State level committee, headed by Principal Secretary, was held on 16.03.2020 and the following formula was prescribed:

Actual Custody during + Custody post - Parole period Sentence = under trial conviction

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, "Whether the parole period should be deducted from the actual sentence or the total sentence undergone by the applicant?"

Justice Brar highlighted that the present controversy entirely revolves around the interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962. An identical provision has been provided under Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (Act of 1988).

As per Section 3 - (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.

The Court disagreed with the interpretation given by the State and noted that the Cambridge Dictionary defines 'total' as an aggregate of smaller parts while 'actual' is defined as something that is existing in fact.

As such, actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars, and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict, the judge observed.

"Thus, 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. Similarly, grant of interim bail, furlough, suspension of sentence etc. does not, in any manner, increase or decrease the actual undergone period of sentence," it added.

The bench said, as such, total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him. Pertinently, 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.

Objective Of Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act Is Humanitarian, Deduction Of Parole Period From Actual Sentence Would Defeat The Purpose

Adding that the objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature and temporary release ensures that the ties between the prisoner and the society are not severed, the Court said, "It also incentivizes the inmates to maintain good conduct while in custody, that aids the jail authorities in administration as well."

Any relief granted to the accused under the Act of 1962 cannot be used to his detriment. The State cannot be allowed to provide something with one hand and take the same away with the other, it added.

 It said that the deduction of parole period from actual sentence, without any amendment in the Act of 1962 to that effect, would be wholly impermissible as it would defeat the very object of the Act of 1962.

Justice Brar opined that, "The prisoner must spend the time stipulated as 'actual sentence' by the policy in order to be eligible for premature release. Even if one avails multiple paroles, the minimum benchmark of actual custody set out in the policy will have to be met in all cases. Alterations or corrections, if any, ought to be made to the 􏰁total sentence􏰂 by adding remission and subtracting concessions like parole."

Referring to Section 3(3) of Act the Court concluded that, "the period of parole shall not be counted towards the total sentence. As such, by merely using the rule making power, or issuing clarifications, without amending the parent Act, the deduction of the period of parole from actual sentence cannot be held to be legally binding."

Consequently, the Court declared the the formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab for the applicant-State (CRM-W-556-2025) and for the respondents-State (in CRWP-11354-2025).

Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sabherwal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRWP-11354-2025) and for the non-applicant/petitioner (CRM-W-556-2025)

Title: RUPINDER SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order