Aba Umrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 1902 Bom

                                                                                     15. cri wp 727-17.doc


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

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 727 OF 2017


            Aba Umrao Shinde                                                .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                        .. Respondent

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia     APP for the State
                                                    ...................



                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 20, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition being

aggrieved by the fact that he was permanently removed

from the remission register.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the

petitioner was arrested in the year 2007 for committing an

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

15. cri wp 727-17.doc

offence under Sections 396 and 342 of IPC. The petitioner

was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner

applied for parole leave on 9.11.2011 on the ground of

illness of his wife. The said application was granted and the

petitioner was released on parole leave for a period of 30

days i.e from 10.4.2012 to 11.5.2012. The petitioner

thereafter preferred an application for extension of parole

leave for a further period of 30 days. The said application

was granted and the parole leave was extended from

11.5.2012 to 9.6.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred

application for second extension of parole leave for a further

period of 30 days i.e from 10.6.2012 to 9.7.2012. The said

application came to be rejected. The petitioner had to

surrender on 10.6.2012, however, he did not surrender

before the prison authorities. As the petitioner did not report

back to the prison in time and he had absconded, FIR came

to be lodged against him under Section 224 of IPC at Kalamb

Police Station, Usmanabad vide FIR No. 72/13 dated

22.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was traced and

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

15. cri wp 727-17.doc

arrested by the police on 1.1.2014 and brought back to the

prison on 3.1.2014. Thus, the petitioner had overstayed for

570 days.

4. On account of overstay of 570 days, show cause notice

was issued to the petitioner on 21.4.2014. The petitioner

submitted his explanation stating that the overstay was on

account of illness of his wife. However, no supporting

documents i.e medical papers were submitted to the office to

substantiate the claim that he had overstayed on account of

illness of his wife. After considering the facts and

circumstances of this case and the fact that the medical

papers were not submitted, the Superintendent of Jail

proposed the punishment to remove the petitioner from the

remission system as per the guideline issued on 2.8.2011

Thereafter, the proposal was submitted to the Deputy

Inspector General of Prisons, Western Region, Pune vide

letter dated 27.2.2012. The Deputy Inspector General of

Prisons, Western Region, Pune sanctioned the said proposal

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

15. cri wp 727-17.doc

on 22.4.2015. Thereafter, the proposal was sent to the

Sessions Judge, Pune for approval. The Sessions Court

approved the punishment of removing the petitioner from

the remission system. Thereafter, the punishment was

implemented on 6.2.2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

father of the petitioner expired on 5.8.2012 and his widowed

sister was residing with the petitioner who had some medical

problems for which she had go undergo an operation and it

was on account of these facts that the petitioner could not

report back to the prison in time. However, again no

certificates were produced by the petitioner to substantiate

his claim on these two aspects.

6. The notification under the Prisons Act dated 2.8.2011

clearly states that if a prisoner stays outside the jail

unauthorizedly for a period of six months or more, his

remission will be cut permanently. This is stated in clause 8

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

15. cri wp 727-17.doc

of the said notification. The petitioner is clearly covered by

clause 8 of the said notification, hence, we cannot find any

fault with the authorities for removing the petitioner from the

remission system permanently. No case is made out for

interference. Rule is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          5 of 5