Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parole overstay in Peoples' Union Of Civil Liberties And ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 28 January, 1983Matching Fragments
2. Section 8, U.P. Prisoners Releason probation Act. runs as follows:
Section 8. The State Government may remit the whole or a part of the sentence of a person sentenced to imprisonment for an offence under any Act. on such person entering into a bond. with one or more sureties, in such amount and for such period as the State Government may direct, to be of good behaviour and to observe such conditions as to residence or otherwise as the State Government may impose.
3. Section 8 provides for a remission of the whole or a part of the sentence by the State Government and also provides that bonds may be taken Sub-section (3) deals with the consequences of the failure to observe the conations of the bond. While Sub-section (3) no doubt deals with the cases where release is on remission of sentence, as a principle it would indicate that when there is a temporary release on a short term parole and there is overstay as a logical consequence that factor may also weigh adversely against the prisoner concerned although we agree with the submission that any single factor cannot necessarily be decisive factor and a number of facts and circumstances are to be taken into consideration in the matter of premature release.
18. Gopal has served about 191/2 years including remission as per second chart which is quite a long period, the probation Board as per its meeting on 14-7-1981 deferred the matter of release on any parole for one year only and that period has also expired. His conduct in jail is also satisfactory. His case is at par with most of detenus of chart No. 1 who have already been released by the State Government and when that is the position and there is no adverse factor against Gopal we feel that he is also entitled to premature release. True that he also on one occasion overstayed on parole but that overstay was for only 11 days and circumstances do arise when for any compelling reasons for and short, period one overstays and that would not weigh as an adverse factor in his case.
It is submitted that when that is the position, the State Government taking its final decision in the matter should have directed their release also. Another supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in December 1982 is, however, important. It is stated in para 7 of that supplementary counter-affidavit that Somai overstayed parole for 148 days so did Sheopoojan. It is further stated that the State Government after considering all the facts and circumstances did not find their cases fit for premature release on the basis of clemencv and the position was thus later clarified. The State counsel also stated at the bar that there is a notification of the State Government providing for various informations to be furnished in the application seeking any premature release and one of such informations required is to the effect whether any release was granted an parole and if so, whether there was any overstay. We have no reasons to doubt the correctness of the statement made at bar though any copy of that notification could not be actually filed as such.
Besides the, period of Overstay in cases of Somai alias Suman and Sheopoojan is much more that is almost 5 months. In the circumstances the cases of Somai alias Suman and Sheopoojan cannot be treated at par in all respect with those who have been released, The length of the period of overstay has its own importance; if any individual is by way of licence granted a parole for a specified period overstaying for a period of five months as to remain free without any licence though in reality a detenu and convict, required by the law to serve sentence, would amount to a gross abuse of such licence. In the circumstances we do not find the cases of Somai alias Suman and Sheopoojan suitable enough directing or recommending their release forthwith. Of course it is always open to the State Government to reconsider their cases for premature release after a reasonably interval and to also consider the explanation, if any, offered by these persons, to account for such long overstay.