Crl. W.P. No. 199 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. W.P. No. 199 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 06-10-2009 Balbir Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that with regard to petitioner no.2 he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition. Permitted to do so. Hence, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner no.2. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 of criminal appeal no. 910-919 of 2001 titled as 'Joginder Singh versus State of Punjab and others' which are reproduced hereunder:- “10. With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the said respondents. In other words reactance 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 case cited by the Crl. W.P. No. 199 of 2009(O&M) 2 appellant, this Court has categorically held that there is substantial difference between the words “Parole” and “Furlough” one one hand and the expression “bail” on the other. These judgments have als oheld 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 apply the remission given by the government. In view of this 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.” Further reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Crl.W.P.No. 991 of 2006 titled as 'Jagdeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others' which is attached as Annexure P-3. The facts of the case are undisputed. Petitioner no.1 was convicted under the provisions of Section 395/149/412 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years vide order dated 18.9.2008. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of the total substantive sentence of 24 months, petitioner no.1 has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 23 months which facts has been affirmed by the custody certificate which has been placed on record. Therefore, according to the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, petitioner no.1 is entitled to remission granted by State of Punjab till before 11.9.2001 but he would not be entitled to benefit of remissions granted on or after 11.9.2001. Crl. W.P. No. 199 of 2009(O&M) 3 Necessary orders be passed in the light of the aforesaid observations within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. Disposed of. October 06, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge