Rajesh Aglesh Raman vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9313 Bom

                                                                                   6. cri wp 4653-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4653 OF 2017


            Rajesh Aglesh Raman                                           .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar                APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the

ground of illness of his sister. The said application was

rejected by the Authorities. Being aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be

dismissed. However, this Court, by order dated 31.3.2016,

granted parole to the petitioner for a period of 30 days.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 3





                                                              6. cri wp 4653-17.doc

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on

25.4.2016 for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, this Court by

order dated 30.5.2016, extended the parole period.

Thereafter, the matter came up before this Court on

20.6.2016. This Court observed that it was not inclined to

extend the period of parole and directed the petitioner to

surrender back to the prison by 24.6.2016. However, it is an

admitted fact that the petitioner surrendered back to the

prison on 27.6.2016. Thus, there was delay of three days in

reporting back to the prison.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

account of various difficulties, the petitioner could not

surrender back to the prison in time i.e on 24.6.2016 and he

surrendered back to the prison on 27.6.2016. She submitted

that for each day of overstay, remission of 5 days have been

cut that is for three days of overstay, remission of 15 days

has been cut.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          2 of 3





                                                             6. cri wp 4653-17.doc

4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, on

humanitarian ground, we are inclined to reduce the prison

punishment of cutting of remission of 5 days for each day of

overstay to cutting of remission of 1 day for each day of

overstay.

5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         3 of 3