Anil Ramchandra Parab vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 2027 Bom

                                                                            23. wp 3461.16.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3461 OF 2016

                 Mr.Anil Ramchandra Parab
                 Age : 46 years, Occ.
                 Having address at
                 Mukkam Post, Nad (Talewadi)
                 Taluka Devgad, District Sindhudurg                   .. Petitioner

                         Vs.

                 1.  State of Maharashtra
                      Through Public Prosecutor

                 2.   Deputy Inspector General Jail 
                       Central Department, Aurangabad                 .. Respondents

                 Mr. Jagdish Pandey i/b Mr.Shashi D.Pandey, for Petitioner.
                 Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP  for State.

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

26th APRIL, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI, J) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

30/03/2013. The said application was granted by order dated

09/07/2013 and the petitioner was released on parole on

23. wp 3461.16.doc

19/07/2013 for a period of 30 days. Thereafter the petitioner

preferred an application for extension of parole on 01/08/2013

which was granted and parole period was extended by 30 days.

Thereafter the petitioner preferred 2nd application dated

02/09/2013 for extension of parole which came to be granted

and parole was extended by further period of 30 days. Thus, the

petitioner had to surrender on 18/10/2013. However, the

petitioner did not surrender on the due date i.e. 18/10/2013

and instead he surrendered on 22/11/2013. There was delay of

35 days in surrendering back to the prison. On account of his

over stay, prison punishment was imposed on the petitioner of

cutting remission of four days for each day of over stay. Being

aggrieved by this fact, this Petition has been preferred.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

account of high diabetics, the petitioner developed cataract in

both his eyes. Hence, first operation took place on 07/10/2013.

On that day, the left eye was operated. Thereafter on

18/10/2013, the petitioner was operated on the other eye i.e.

23. wp 3461.16.doc

right eye for cataract. It is on account of these two operations

that the petitioner could not report back to the prison in time.

He submitted that in this view of the matter, parole period be

extended by a further period of 35 days. As far as this

contention is concerned, the petitioner was already released on

parole for 30 days which period was extended by 30 plus 30

days i.e. total period of parole granted to the petitioner was 90

days. As rule stood at that time, parole period could not have

been extended for more than 90 days. Hence, it is not possible

to grant this relief to the petitioner.

4. Thereafter the learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that in view of two operations undergone by the

petitioner, a lenient view may be taken. It is not controverted

that the petitioner has undergone two operations. Moreover, the

jail chart of the petitioner shows that on 22/05/2012 and on

13/09/2012, the petitioner was released on furlough. On both

the occasions, he reported back to the prison in time.

Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on

23. wp 3461.16.doc

10/02/2016. He reported back to the prison in time. In

addition, the petitioner was released on parole on 16/02/2015,

25/05/2015 and 03/08/2016 and on all occasions, he reported

back to the prison on the due dates on his own. Thus, it is seen

that the petitioner has been reporting back to the prison, on his

own on due date except in the present case, where there was

delay of 35 days and one more occasion i.e. on 20/08/2014, he

was released on furlough and he reported back on his own to

the jail though 1 day late as per the jail report of the petitioner.

On both occasions of overstay he reported back on his own to

the prison. Thus, looking to all the above facts, on humanitarian

ground, we are inclined to reduce the period of punishment.

Hence, instead of cutting remission of four days for each day of

over stay, we reduce the prison punishment to cutting remission

of one day for each day of over stay.

5. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Rule is

accordingly made absolute.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)