Pir Mohd. Mohd. Siddiqui Ansari ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2606 Bom

                                                                      crwp228.16


                                            1




                                                                           
                                                   
                                                  
                                          
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              ig   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                      Criminal Writ Petition No. 228 of 2016
                            
     Pir Mohd. Mohd. Siddiqui Ansari,
     C-8148,
     Central Prison,
     Nagpur.                                          .....            Petitioner.
      


                                          Versus
   



     1.      State of Maharashtra,
             through its Secretary,
             Home Department,





             Mantralaya,
             Mumbau-32.

     2.      The Divisional Commissioner,
             Nagpur.





     3.      The Superintendent of Prison,
             Central Prison,
             Nagpur.                                ....       Respondents.


                                   *****
     Mrs. Sneha S. Dhote, Adv., [appointed] for the petitioner.




    ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:42 :::
                                                                          crwp228.16


                                            2




                                                                              
                                                      
     Mr. Khan, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents.

                                           *****




                                                     
                                   CORAM    :      B. R. GAVAI AND
                                                   V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

Date : 07th June, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:

01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor, Mr. Khan, waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of rival parties,

this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this

Judgment and Order.

02. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance

that the respondents have erroneously calculated the number of days

of late surrender by the petitioner.

03. It is the contention of the petitioner that though as per the

parole leave, the petitioner was released on 7th December, 2013 and

though he was required to surrender on 28th January, 2014,

immediately on the next day, i.e., 29th January, 2014, the parole leave

crwp228.16

came to be extended by seven days.

04. We find that the contention raised is correct. Perusal of the

material placed on record would reveal that vide order dated 29th

January, 2014, the petitioner's parole leave came to be extended by

seven days.

05. We

are, therefore, of the considered view that the

punishment awarded for seven days, i.e., 7 x 5 = 35, would not be

sustainable.

06. Even, according to the respondents, after serving the

additional 205 days by way of punishment, the petitioner was entitled

to be released on 8th July, 2016.

07. If the period of thirty-five days is excluded therefrom, the

petitioner has already completed the period which is required to be

undergone by him.

08. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to be

released forthwith, if not required in any other crime.

crwp228.16

09. Fees payable to the learned Adv. [appointed] for the

petitioner are quantified in a sum of Rs. 1500/- [rupees one thousand

five hundred only].

               Judge                                               Judge




                                        
                              ig   -0-0-0-0-
                            
     |hedau|