Ganpat Khandu Lohat vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4965 Bom

                                                                                   14. cri wp 1731-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1731 OF 2017


            Ganpat Khandu Lohat                                            .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia        APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : JULY 24, 2017.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

19.8.2008 on the ground of illness of his son. The said

application was granted by order dated 20.10.2008.

Pursuant thereto, he was released on parole on 24.10.2008

for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, on account of illness of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

14. cri wp 1731-17.doc

the son of the petitioner, he preferred the first application for

extension of parole on 17.11.2008. By the said application,

he had sought extension of parole for a period of 30 days i.e

from 24.11.2008 to 23.12.2008. The petitioner did not

receive any reply, hence, he preferred second application for

extension of parole on 16.12.2008. By this application, he

sought extension of parole by a further period of 30 days i.e

from 24.12.2008 to 22.1.2009. The petitioner did not receive

any reply to both of his applications for extension of parole.

The petitioner surrendered back to the prison on 3.2.2009.

As both the applications for extension of parole were not

granted, it was held that the petitioner had overstayed for 71

days, hence, prison punishment was imposed on him of

cutting of remission of 355 days i.e in the ratio of 1:5.

3. For extension of parole, the petitioner has relied on

medical certificate issued by Dr. Lalwani of Lalwani Hospital,

Pune which shows that the minor son of the petitioner is

suffering from infective hepatitis gastritis and he is under the

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

14. cri wp 1731-17.doc

treatment of Dr. Lalwani.

4. Pursuant to the applications of extension of parole, the

police report was called. The police report in relation to the

second application for extension of parole preferred by the

petitioner shows that the son of the petitioner is indeed

taking treatment in Dr. Lalwani Hospital, hence, the reason

given by the petitioner for extension of parole i.e his son is

ailing is found to be true. The police report further shows

that besides the petitioner, there was no one in the family to

take care of his son, hence, it was necessary to grant him

extension of parole. In addition, in the police report, it is

stated that the petitioner has been diligently reporting to the

police station and has not indulged in any illegal activity

during the period that he was on parole / extended parole.

5. The jail record of the petitioner shows that on 9

occasions, he was released on furlough and on all 9

occasions, he has reported back to the prison on the due

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

14. cri wp 1731-17.doc

date on his own. In addition, on 8 occasions, the petitioner

was released on parole and on 6 occasions, the petitioner

reported back to the prison on the due date on his own. On

one occasion, there was delay of 26 days in reporting back to

the prison, however, he reported back on his own to the

prison. Thereafter, the petitioner was again released on

parole. In fact, thereafter, on four occasions, the petitioner

was released on parole and on all occasions, he had reported

back on the due date to the prison on his own.

6. In the present case, in the circumstances stated above,

there was delay of 71 days in reporting back to the prison. As

stated earlier, the petitioner has reported back on his own to

the prison. His conduct in the prison is stated to be good.

Looking to the medical certificate and the police report and

the conduct of the prisoner in prison, on humanitarian

ground, we are inclined to extend the period of parole for 30

+ 30 days = 60 days. Accordingly, parole is extended by 60

days. However, even if the extension is granted, there would

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

14. cri wp 1731-17.doc

still be overstay of 11 days on the part of the petitioner for

which the prison punishment has already been imposed by

the Authorities in the ratio of 1:5 i.e 11 days x 5 = 55 days

cut in remission. This punishment is maintained. Rule is

made absolute in the above terms.

7. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

is lodged in Yerwada Central Open Prison, Pune.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]                 [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                            5 of 5