Bombay High Court
Vinod Damodar Ghogle vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 May, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
11. cri wp 1649-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2017
Vinod Damodar Ghogle .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MAY 2, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is head finally.
3. The petitioner has preferred an application for parole
on account of medical problem of his mother. The medical
problem was that his mother required surgery of the spine.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
11. cri wp 1649-17.doc
By order dated 26.2.2016, the petitioner was released on
parole for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner
preferred first application for extension of parole on
8.3.2016. In the said application, he had sought extension of
parole for a period of 30 days. The petitioner did not receive
any reply thereon. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
second application for extension of parole on 12.4.2016. By
the said application, he sought further extension of parole for
a period of 30 days. The petitioner did not receive any reply
in relation to both his applications for extension of parole,
hence, he surrendered back to the prison on 28.5.2016 i.e on
the 90th day of he being released on parole. Both the
applications were thereafter rejected on 12.8.2016.
4. The case of the petitioner is that if he had been
informed earlier that his applications for extension of parole
were rejected, he would have reported back to the prison
immediately. However, as he was not informed about the
decision on his application, he was under impression that
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
11. cri wp 1649-17.doc
extensions would have been granted, hence, he surrendered
back to the prison on 90th day.
5. According to the Prison Authorities, as the petitioner
was released on parole for 30 days, he had to report back to
the prison on 26.3.2016 as his applications for extension of
parole were rejected. However, as stated earlier, the order
of rejection is 12.8.2016 i.e much after the petitioner
surrendered back to the prison. It is an admitted fact that
both the applications were rejected by order dated 12.8.2016
i.e almost three months after the petitioner had surrendered
back to the prison. As the petitioner did not surrender in
time, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and
prison punishment was imposed on him of cutting of
remission of 4 days for each day of overstay. The learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed that the prison punishment
be set aside.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
11. cri wp 1649-17.doc
6. Looking to all the above facts, on humanitarian ground,
we are inclined to reduce the prison punishment from cutting
remission of four days for each day of overstay to cutting
remission of one day for each day of overstay.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
8. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who
is in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
