Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Yet again in Pushpadevi v. M.L. Wadhavan, , the Apex Court held:

"Even if any conditions are imposed with a view to restrict the movements of the detenu while on parole, the observance of those conditions can never lead to an equation of the period of parole with the period of detention. One need not look far off to see the reason because the observations of the conditions of parole, wherever imposed, such a reporting daily or periodically before a designated authority, residing in a particular town or city, traveling within prescribed limits alone and not going beyond etc. will not prevent the detenu from moving and acting as free agent during the rest of the time or within the circumscribed limits of travel and having full scope and opportunity to meet people of his choice and have dealings with them, to correspond with one and all to have easy and effective communication with whomsoever he likes through telephone, telex etc. Due to the spectacular achievements in modern communication system, a detenu, while on parole, can sit in a room in a house or hotel and have contacts with all his relations, friends and confederates in any part of the country or even any part of the world and thereby pursue his unlawful activities if so inclined. It will, therefore, be futile to contend that the period of parole of a detenu has all the trappings of actual detention in prison and as such both the periods should find a natural merger and they stand denuded of their distinctive characteristics. Any view to the contrary would not only be opposed to realities but would defeat the very purpose of preventive detention and would also lead to making a mockery of the preventive detention laws enacted by the Centre or the States. It will not be out of place to point out here that in spite of the Criminal Procedure Code providing for release of the convicted offenders on probation of good conduct, it expressly provides, when it comes to a question of giving set-off to a convicted person in the period of sentence, that only the actual pre-trial detention period should count for set-off and not the period of bail even if bail had been granted subject to stringent conditions. In contrast, in so far as preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, are concerned, the Act specifically lays down that a person against whom an order of detention has been passed shall not be released on bail or bail bond or otherwise (vide Section 12(6) of the Act) and that any revocation or modification of the orders of detention can be made only by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 11. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that by reason of sub-s (6) of Section 1`2 of the Act placing an embargo on the grant of bail to a detenu there was no necessity for the Legislature to make a provision similar to sub-section (4) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to sub-section (3) of Section 426 of the old Code) for excluding the period of bail from the term of detention period. For these reasons, the plea for treating the period of parole as part of the detention period has to necessarily fail."