Sonu Alias Suraj S/O Dhanraj ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Dy. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1271 Bom

                                                        1                       crwp703.16.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.703/2016

      Sonu alias Suraj s/o Dhanraj Patdiwate,
      C-9099, Detained in Central Prision, Nagpur,
      Dist. Nagpur.                             .....PETITIONER
                          ...V E R S U S...

 1. State of Maharashtra, thr.
    Dy. Commissioner of Prison (East), Nagpur.

 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
      Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.                                       ...RESPONDENTS
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for respondents.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CORAM:-      B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
                                                  V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :- MARCH 29, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned A.P.P. for

the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner was released on parole. He has sought

extension by moving the necessary application, well within time. He

was released for one month on 07.10.2015 and he sought extension of

another 30 days on 26.10.2015. It was rejected and the said order

dated 08.11.2015 was not communicated to the petitioner. The

petitioner claims that he, therefore, reported voluntarily on 09.11.2015.

In the process, he was late by two days and therefore the punishment of

1:1 has been imposed. The petition presented to this court is drafted by

counsel appointed for the petitioner. In the petition, the prayer is to

quash and set aside the order dated 30.10.2015.

2 crwp703.16.odt

3. The events show that for late reporting by two days, a show

cause notice was served upon the petitioner dated 10.11.2015. Reply

thereto is not apparent and the impugned order of imposing the

punishment dated 20.01.2016 mentions that the explanation given to

the show cause notice is considered. In that explanation, the petitioner

submitted that as his wife was receiving the treatment, he had applied

for extension and as there was no decision, he was late by two days.

This explanation has not been accepted.

In this case, keeping in mind that as there was an

application for extension but reasons therefor are not found to be

incorrect and the late returning is only by two days, we set aside the

order dated 20.01.2016. The order rejecting the extension, however, is

maintained.

The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

Charges of the counsel appointed are fixed at Rs.1500/-.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

kahale