After a lot of controversies and hearings, Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to imprisonment for five years for owning arms and ammunitions which were consigned for the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The actor’s constant parole and furlough however came into limelight and his early release resulted in reports questioning the prison authorities over the leniency shown towards the Bollywood star.
Bombay High Court has now questioned the state government over the early release of Sanjay Dutt (which happened in February 2016). Justice RM Savant and Justice SS Jadhav have asked the police officials to provide an explanation for the early release after a PIL was filed by Pune based Pradeep Bhalekar who in his complaint has also questioned the constant furloughs and paroles that the actor received.
However, recent reports claim that as a response to the same, the prison authorities will be submitting an affidavit to the bench that clearly indicates that no special treatment was given to the actor and the reason why he was released was due to the days he earned for his good conduct.
We hear that the reports of Sanjay Dutt’s good conduct were based on how he did not get into trouble or arguments with inmates as well as the officials during his sentence. He also worked in jail, making paper bags for which he earned about Rs. 50 per day. Keeping in mind these things along with the fact that jail inmates are allowed to reduce their sentence by 294 days, Sanjay Dutt was released eight months before the completion of his sentence. Sanjay Dutt, however received only 240 days of remission.
Talking about the parole and furlough, it was being said that in a circular issued by the Maharashtra government it was stated that these leaves will be counted within the jail term and based on the same, Dutt was granted a parole in October 2015. While he was released in February 2016, it was only in August 2016 when the Government decided to revoke the circular after the Pallavi Purakayastha murder case.
Readers may recall that Sanjay Dutt was convicted for six year imprisonment in 2007 after which the actor had appealed against the verdict. In May 2013, after he surrendered the court had reduced his sentence to five year imprisonment. While the actor had already served 18 months sentence previously, he was left only with 42 months to complete the sentence.