Bombay High Court
Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3809 OF 2015
Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 03, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made
returnable forthwith.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
the ground of illness of his wife. The said application came to
be granted and the petitioner was released on parole for a
period of 30 days from 11.2.2015 to 13.3.2015. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole.
Being first application for extension of parole, the said
1 of 4
jdk 2 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc
application was granted and the parole period was extended
from 14.3.2015 to 12.4.2015. Thereafter the petitioner
preferred second application for extension of parole for a
period of 30 days. The said application is dated 31.3.2015.
The said application came to be rejected by order dated
13.4.2015. The petitioner surrendered on his own to the prison
on 13.5.2015. Thus, as the second application for extension of
parole was not granted, the period of 31 days was held to be
overstay on the part of the petitioner and the prison
punishment was imposed by cutting of remission of 4 days for
each day of overstay. Thus, for 31 days of overstay, the
remission was cut for a period of 124 days i.e. in the ratio of
1:4. The prayer of the petitioner is that the prison punishment
imposed on the ground of the overstay, be quashed.
3 The reason for the petitioner seeking second
extension of parole was that his wife had "Bronchial Asthma"
and his two daughters were getting married on 29.4.2015. The
second application for extension of parole was rejected on the
ground that the application was preferred late. The application
should have been preferred by 28.3.2015, however, the
2 of 4
jdk 3 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc
application for second extension of parole was preferred on
31.3.2015. It is on this sole ground that the application of the
petitioner for second extension of parole, came to be rejected.
4 As far as the illness of his wife is concerned, the
petitioner has annexed medical certificate which shows that
the wife of the petitioner was suffering from "Bronchial
Asthma". The genuineness of this certificate is not doubted by
the prosecution.
The additional reason for the petitioner to
seek second extension of parole is that both his daughters
were getting married on 29.4.2015. The fact that daughters of
the petitioner were getting married on 29.4.2015 is also not
controverted by the prosecution. Thus, it is seen that the
reason for seeking second extension of parole appears to be
genuine. In this view of the matter, on humanitarian ground,
we are inclined to extend the period of parole. However, it is to
be noted that parole can be granted along with extension for a
maximum period of 90 days, however, the petitioner came
back to the prison after 91 days. Thus, as far as period of 30
days is concerned, we grant extension of parole, however, for
one day, it will be deemed to be overstay on the part of the
3 of 4
jdk 4 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc
petitioner and the prison punishment imposed on account of
one day overstay is not interfered with.
5 In view of the above, we grant extension of 30 days of
parole to the petitioner. Any prison punishment imposed on
account of the said overstay, is set aside.
6 Rule made absolute in above terms.
7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Nasik Road Central Prison.
8 Legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate is
quantified at Rs.2500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
4 of 4
