Takku Singh S/O Ajit Singh Kalyani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5505 Bom

                                                                                    1. cri wp 2719-16.doc


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




                                                                                                  
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2719 OF 2016




                                                                          
            Takku Singh S/o. Ajit Singh Kalyani                            .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                         
            State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                    .. Respondents

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




                                                              
            Mrs. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia                      APP for the State
                                              
                                     ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

12.7.2003. The said application came to be granted by order

dated 3.2.2004. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner

was released on furlough leave on 20.3.2004 for a period of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

1. cri wp 2719-16.doc

14 days. The petitioner had to surrender before the Jail

Authorities on 4.4.2004, however, the petitioner did not

surrender back in time and he was arrested and brought

back to jail on 7.7.2004. Thus, there was overstay of 93 days

on the part of the petitioner. On account of this, a show

cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.8.2005

calliing for his explanation for overstay. The petitioner

submitted his explanation on 10.10.2005 in which he stated

that his wife was sick and she required hysterectomy.

Thereafter, prison punishment was imposed on the petitioner

to forfeit his remission in the ratio of 1:5 i.e for each day of

overstay, 5 days of remission would be cut. The petitioner is

aggrieved by the prison punishment imposed on him and

prays that it be set aside.

4. Looking to the explanation submitted by the petitioner,

we are of the opinion that, on humanitarian ground, the

prison punishment ought to be reduced, hence, instead of

the ratio of 1:5 days, we are reducing it to the ratio of 1:3

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

1. cri wp 2719-16.doc

days.

5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

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




                                          
                                    
                                   
      
   






    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         3 of 3