Criminal Misc. No. M-37048 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-37048 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.01.2011 Avinash Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) By filing this petition, petitioner seeks benefit of remissions during the period, he remained on bail. In Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 341, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "9. With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the said respondents. In other words, acceptance of this argument, in our opinion, would reduce the criminal justice system to mockery as has been said by this Court in Nauratta Singh's case (supra). In the cases cited by the appellant, this Court has categorically held that there is substantial difference between the words "parole" and "furlough" on one hand and the expression "bail" on the other. These judgments have also held that persons who are enlarged on bail cannot claim the benefit of the period during which they were on bail for the purpose of counting the period of sentence already undergone to Criminal Misc. No. M-37048 of 2010 2 .. apply the remission given by the Government. In view of this clear enunciation of law, in our opinion, even by the inclusion of the word "bail" in the notification of the Punjab Government an accused who has always remained on bail or has not served the substantial part of his sentence cannot take advantage of the remission notification." Afore quoted authority squarely clinches the matter. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of remissions during the period he remained on bail. Dismissed. 31.01.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) som JUDGE