Tara Sudhakar Chauhan (In Jail) vs D.I.G. (Prison) (East), Nagpur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 940 Bom

                                           1                   WP109-16.odt         



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                           
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                   
                              WRIT PETITION NO.109/2016
                                          ...




                                                  
    Tara Sudhakar Chauhan,
    Convict No.8466,
    Central Prison, Nagpur.                       ..             PETITIONER




                                               
                                   .. Versus ..
                             
    1. D.I.G. (Prisons) (East),
       Nagpur.
                            
    2. Jail Superintendent,
       Nagpur Central Jail,
       Nagpur.                                    ..            RESPONDENTS
      


    Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
   



    Ms. R.V. Kalia, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

                                   .....





                  CORAM : B.R. Gavai & A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

DATED : March 28, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per A.S. Chandurkar, J. )

1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

respondent no.1 thereby proposing jail punishment of cutting

2 WP109-16.odt

remission of the petitioner to the extent of 335 days. The

acceptance of said proposal by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge is also under challenge.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially released on

furlough on 15.02.2013. However, due to the illness of her son, the

petitioner had moved an application for extending the said leave on

20.02.2013. The said application was not decided and the same

was kept pending. In the meanwhile, as the health of the

petitioner's son deteriorated, the petitioner was required to further

continue on leave so as to enable necessary treatment of her son.

Another application dated 03.04.2013 was moved by the petitioner

seeking further extension of the leave. However, by the impugned

orders without considering these factors, the petitioner has been

deprived of the remission.

4. Ms. R.V. Kalia, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and has submitted that as the

petitioner had surrendered late when she was released on parole,

there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

5. The perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had

moved an application for extension of parole leave on 20.02.2013.

Same was decided ultimately on 09.03.2013 by rejecting the prayer

3 WP109-16.odt

made therein. The medical certificates dated 6.3.2013 and

28.03.2013 indicate the ailments of the petitioner's son.

Considering the fact that the application for extension of parole

leave was moved by the petitioner on two occasions coupled with

the aforesaid medical certificates, the order proposing to refuse

extension of parole leave is liable to be set aside. Similarly in the

facts of the present case, the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur accepting the proposal of

depriving the petitioner from getting remission of 335 days, is also

liable to be set aside on same count.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order

proposing to deprive the petitioner of remission as well as the order

dated 28.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Nagpur are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms

of prayer clause (c) with no order as to costs.

         (A.S. Chandurkar, J. )                      (B.R. Gavai, J.)





                                              ...


    halwai/p.s.