The Gujarat High Court recently granted a 15-day parole to a convict serving a life sentence for his involvement in burning the Sabarmati Express, an incident that triggered the post-Godhra riots in 2002.
A single-judge Justice Nisha M Thakore clarified that granting parole does not equate to suspending the sentence but is considered part of the sentence itself and does not interfere with the ongoing appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The case was initially registered in 2002 at the Godhra Police Station in Panchmahal. The petitioner, Hasan Ahmed Charkha, received a life sentence from the Additional Sessions Judge in Godhra. Charkha subsequently appealed the conviction and life sentence to the High Court, but his appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence. He later approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition in 2018, which is still pending.
While awaiting a decision on the appeal, Charkha applied for bail, which is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. Given these circumstances, Charkha filed a plea before the High Court seeking parole on the grounds that his presence was required for the weddings of his two nieces.
His counsel highlighted Charkha’s good conduct record in jail, his previous timely surrender after being granted parole, and the absence of any untoward incidents during his previous releases. However, the State opposed the grant of parole, arguing that convicts are not entitled to be released on parole or furlough during the pendency of an appeal against conviction and sentence at a higher court, particularly in this case, the Supreme Court. The State further contended that judicial comity demanded that the High Court refrain from exercising its powers in this matter while the appellate court was considering the case.
The key question before the Court was whether the High Court should grant parole to the petitioner through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the pendency of the appeal and bail application before the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437. The Supreme Court’s ruling reiterated that parole does not amount to the suspension of the sentence. The Court emphasized that despite being granted parole under statutory provisions, rules, jail manuals, or government orders, the convict continues to serve the sentence.
Based on this legal principle, the High Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider applications seeking parole leave under Article 226 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court referred to various precedents and cited Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, and Rule 832 note (i) of the Jail Manual.
The Court affirmed that granting parole should not be considered as the suspension of the sentence, but rather as part of the sentence itself. Consequently, the Court stated, “Thus, in light of the aforementioned provisions and settled legal position, I am of the firm view that the release of a prisoner on parole would not amount to suspension of sentence. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
