Undertrial cannot be equated with convicts for grant of parole to prevent over-crowding in jails: Uttarakhand prisoner moves Supreme Court

An undertrial prisoner from Uttarakhand has moved the Supreme Court stating that undertrials cannot be equated with convicts for the purpose of grant of parole to prevent over-crowding in jails amid the COVID-19 pandemic..The petitioner stated that the decision of the State High Powered Committee (HPC) to deny the benefit of parole to undertrial prisoners charged with offences punishable with more than 7 years' imprisonment, would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution..On May 7, a Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had directed that prisoners across the country who were released last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently re-imprisoned after COVID cases seemingly reduced, would be eligible for immediate release again in view of the surge in COVID cases..[BREAKING] Supreme Court orders re-release of all eligible prisoners to prevent COVID-19 spread in prisons.The petitioner, who is lodged in Haridwar District Jail, stated that the Uttarakhand High Powered Committee passed an order in March 2020 adopting the parameters put forth by the Supreme Court in its March 23, 2020 order. It was decided that barring certain exceptions - including cases under the POCSO Act, sexual offences against women, waging war against the State - convicts and undertrials would be released from prisons..However, the HPC further directed that such prisoners including undertrials who do not come within the exceptions but are convicted or facing trial for offences carrying a sentence of more than seven years, will not be entitled for parole or interim bail..The petitioner, who is facing trial for cheating and other offences having punishment of more than 7 years, contended that "fallacy is that no one knows what would be the fate of his trial and even if it is to be assumed that the petitioner is convicted then still it is uncertain about how much sentence will be awarded."He has been in custody since September 2019 and has undergone one and a half years of the actual sentence..The plea drawn and settled by advocate Rishi Malhotra stated that to deny the benefit of parole to the petitioner would not only be violative of Article 21, but also the basic intent behind the Supreme Court's orders on decongestion of jails..Further, the petitioner submitted that to equate undertrials with convicts is an "incorrect way to consider the cases of prisoners on parole as quite obviously an undertrial is presumed to be innocent till he is proven guilty by a trial court". "To bracket them by the same yardstick is totally uncalled for and wrong," it added..It was further pointed out that the parameters adopted by the HPCs of Delhi and Haryana are different, in that there is no bar on undertrials to avail the benefit of the Supreme Court order..On these grounds and others, the petitioner prayed that he be released on parole in line with the Supreme Court's orders.