Background 

In the Matter of Hasan Ahmed Charkha v. State of Gujarat, The convict’s wife requested his release on parole leave for a term of 60 days in a writ petition submitted under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. According to the Penal Code, Railways Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Bombay Police Act, a convict was given a life sentence for a variety of offences. The High Court affirmed the ruling when the convict filed an appeal about the conviction. He subsequently requested bail from the Supreme Court, which is currently pending. Due of his maternal uncle’s attendance at the wedding of his sister’s son and daughter, the prisoner requested parole leave throughout the application procedure. Additionally, he asked for instructions on how to disregard the State Government’s notification provided according to Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the event of a parole leave.

Issue

whether parole should be given while both a bail request and an appeal against the conviction were ongoing

Analysis of Court Decision 

Justice Nisha M. Thakore of the Gujrat High Court’s Single Bench approved the parole and stated that the release of the prisoner on parole would not constitute a sentence suspension.

The Court ruled that although an appeal was ongoing against the conviction decision, there was no legal impediment that prevented the Court from using its writ power under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider petitions for parole. The Court concluded that the award of parole would not amount to any involvement in ongoing proceedings under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the absence of any proved conflicting provisions and by adopting the theory of harmonious interpretation.

The Court looked at Rule 832 of the Jail Manual and Rule 20 of the Prisons Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, which said that parole approvals should not be viewed as a suspension of the sentence but rather as a component of the punishment instead. The Court ordered the offender to be freed on a 15-day parole leave after evaluating the defendant’s jail record and application. The Court further determined that during the parole leave time, the State’s notification issued in accordance with Section 268 of the CrPC shall be suspended. At the conclusion of the parole leave, the prisoner was supposed to turn himself into the authorities. The offender was ordered by the court to uphold law and order during his or her parole sentence and refrain from committing any crimes.

CASE NAME – Hasan Ahmed Charkha v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Application No. 7866 / 23