Narendra Bhalchandra Bhoir vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6715 Bom

                                                                                  8. cri wp 3583-16.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3583 OF 2016




                                                                        
            Narendra Bhalchandra Bhoir                                   .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances




                                                            
            Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia       APP for the State
                                              
                                     ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

5.2.2014. The said application was granted and the

petitioner was released on parole on 27.5.2014 for a period

of 30 days. Thereafter, the parole period was extended by a

period of 30 days and thereafter again by a period of 30 days

i.e 60 days extension was granted. Thus, after 30 days of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

8. cri wp 3583-16.doc

initial period of parole and after the extended period of

parole was over, the petitioner had to surrender on

26.8.2014, however, he surrendered to the prison on

27.8.2014 i.e one day late. As the petitioner had overstayed

for one day, his remission was cut in the ratio of five days for

one day of overstay. Against this prison punishment, the

petitioner has approached this Court and prayed for

quashing of the said punishment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the

petitioner was suffering from Dengue and at the time that he

had to surrender, he was in Sanjivani Hospital at Virar where

he was admitted on 25.8.2014 and he was discharged on

27.8.2014 at 7.00 a.m. against medical advice. The medical

documents supporting the fact that the petitioner was

admitted on 25.8.2014 as he was a case of Dengue and he

was discharged against medical advice on 27.8.2014 at 7.00

a.m. are annexed to the petition. These documents are not

controverted by the prosecution.

    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                              2 of 4



                                                                      8. cri wp 3583-16.doc

4. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that after the petitioner surrendered on

27.8.2014, he was admitted by the prison authorities to

Sassoon General Hospital, Pune on 28.8.2014 as he was

diagnosed as a case of Dengue and he was discharged on

30.8.2014. Mr. Jamdar submitted that on account of the fact

that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital, he could not

report back to the prison in time. He submitted that in such

case, on humanitarian ground, the prison punishment

imposed on the petitioner be set aside.

5. It is an admitted fact that as soon as the petitioner

surrendered back to the prison on 27.8.2014, he was

admitted by the prison authorities to Sassoon Hospital, Pune

as he was suffering from Dengue.

6. Chapter XXVII of the Prison Manual which deals with

punishment also sets out the statutory rules made by the

Inspector General of Prisons. Rule 2 deals with the cases of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

8. cri wp 3583-16.doc

late surrender from furlough or parole. Rules 2 reads as

under:-

"2. In each case of late surrender from furlough or breach of

any of the conditions of parole, the punishment mentioned below or specified in Section 48-A of the Act may be awarded by the Superintendent at his discretion with due regard to the

circumstances of the case and after obtaining the prisoner's explanation and the prior approval of the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General if required under Clause 1. If the

superintendent is satisfied that the contravention was for good or sufficient reason, he may excuse the prisoner."

Thus, it is seen that from Rule 2, it is clear that if the

contravention is for good or sufficient reasons, the prisoner

may be excused. In the present case, the overstay of the

petitioner by a period of one day was for good and sufficient

reason, hence, on this occasion, the petitioner may be

excused. In this view of the matter, the prison punishment in

relation to one day of overstay is set aside and the petitioner

be excused for the same.

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

    [ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ]                 [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]


    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                4 of 4