Bombay High Court
Ravi Narsappa Mehtre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Makarand Subhash Karnik
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
Bhogale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3273 OF 2020
Ravi Narsappa Mehtre
Age: 30 years,
Residing at Room No.56, Babasaheb
Ambedkar Nagar, P.M.G.P. Colony,
Near Saibaba Temple, Dharavi,
Mumbai-400 017.
and at presently lodged in Kolhapur
Central Prison, Kolhapur
vide Prisoner No.C-5150. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Offe of
Publif Prosefutor, High Court,
Bombay.
2. The Inspeftor General of Prison,
Western Zone, Maharashtra.
3. The Dy. Inspeftor General of Prison,
Western Zone, Pune-411 006,
Maharashtra.
4. The Jail Superintendent,
Kolhapur Central Prison,
Kalamba, Kolhapur-416 007.
5. The Senior Inspeftor of Polife,
Dharavi Polife Station,
Dharavi, Mumbai- 400 017. .. Respondents
--------
Ms. Harjeet Kaur for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State.
--------
1/11
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 14, 2020
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 24, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard fnally with
the fonsent of learned founsel appearing for the parties.
2. By this Petition fled under Artifle 226 of the Constitution of
India the Petitioner prays that he be granted emergenfy parole.
3. The founsel for the Petitioner however does not press this
prayer in this Petition as in view of the subsequent order passed
by the authority, she has fled a separate Petition for the said
relief. The Petitioner now restrifts the relief for quashing the
order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Jail,
Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur of forfeiture of
remission of 345 days.
4. By the order dated 11.06.2020 whifh is at Exhibit 'C' the
request of the Petitioner for release on emergenfy parole is
rejefted on the ground that the Petitioner surrendered late on
the previous offasion when he was released on furlough/parole.
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
5. The Petitioner was arrested on 13.07.2009 for allegedly
fommitting ofenfes under Seftion 302, 323, 452 read with
Seftion 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) registered
with Dharavi Polife Station, Mumbai. The Petitioner was
fonvifted on 29.11.2011 and sentenfed to sufer imprisonment
for life.
6. The Petitioner was granted parole leave for 30 days from
15.08.2013 to 13.09.2013 in the year 2013. He gave an
applifation for extension of leave by a further 30 days period.
The Petitioner was under an impression that the extension is
granted and therefore did not surrender in time. He overstayed
by 30 days.
7. The Petitioner while on parole in the year 2014
surrendered late by one day. He affepted his mistake.
The Petitioner was warned about his late surrender by a
fommunifation dated 13.03.2015.
8. By an order dated 02.02.2015 the Petitioner was released
on parole for 30 days for the period from 05.02.2015 to
06.03.2015. The due date of his surrender was 07.03.2015.
Affording to the Petitioner he was sufering from infeftive
hepatitis and weakness and even his mother was ill. An
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
applifation was made for extension of parole by 30 days. The
applifation for extension of parole fame to be rejefted on the
ground that the Petitioner is not taking any treatment of his
mother from Dr. V.B. Gajare and that the Petitioner is misguiding
that his mother is taking treatment. An ofenfe fame to be
registered with the Dharavi Polife Station being C.R. No.227 of
2015 under Seftion 224 of the IPC. The Petitioner surrendered
late by 69 days on 15.05.2015.
9. The Petitioner was issued a show fause notife on
21.05.2015 as to why remission earned by petitioner should not
be fut. The Petitioner replied to the show fause notife on
25.05.2015. The Petitioner replied that along with the
applifation for extension of leave made to the Commissioner on
07.03.2015 and 06.04.2015 he had annexed the medifal
fertiffates of the illness of his mother.
10. He further explained that though he wanted to thereafter
surrender on 06.05.2015 but he fould not do so as he was not
keeping well. Affording to him two applifations for extension for
a period of 30 days eafh was made and therefore he had
overstayed the leave by 9 days.
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
11. The Commissioner in the meantime by his fommunifation
dated 09.08.2016 rejefted the applifation for extension of leave
made by petitioner for the period from 07.03.2015 to
06.04.2015.
12. The Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Jail thereafter by the
impugned order dated 27.09.2018, for the late surrender by 69
days has punished the Petitioner with a reduftion in his
remission system by 345 days (69*5=365). The explanation of
the petitioner was not affepted.
13. The order passed by the Superintendent regarding
reduftion of remission was fonfrmed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kolhapur vide order dated 19.03.2020.
14. The learned AGP supported the impugned order and
submitted that the reduftion of 345 days from the remission
system of the Petitioner is in fonsonanfe with the provisions of
the Maharashtra Prison (Bombay Furlough Parole and Parole
Leave) Rules, 1959 and the Government Resolution in that
regard.
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
15. We have also gone through the reply fled by the
Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison dated 11.12.2020
justifying the impugned order.
16. Heard. The Petitioner was released on parole for 30 days
from 15.08.2013 to 13.09.2013 in the year 2013. An applifation
was made for extension for a further 30 days. The Petitioner
overstayed for 30 days as he was under impression that the
extension is granted. There is no dispute that the Petitioner
surrendered on his own.
17. Again in the year 2014 he surrendered late by one day and
affepted his mistake. There is again no dispute that he
surrendered on his own.
18. For the relevant period whifh forms the basis of the
impugned order, the Petitioner was released on parole from
05.02.2015 to 06.03.2015. He had to surrender on 07.03.2015.
The Petitioner made two applifations for extension of parole
leave, one for the period from 07.03.2015 to 06.04.2015 and
thereafter from 06.04.2015 to 06.05.2015. From the impugned
order it is seen that the request made by the Petitioner for
extension of parole leave by a period of 30 days for the period
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
from 07.03.2015 to 06.04.2015 was rejefted by the Divisional
Commissioner on 09.08.2016. The said rejeftion was almost one
year after the Petitioner surrendered on his own on 15.05.2015.
There is nothing on reford to indifate as to whether the
applifation for extension of leave for the period from 06.04.2015
to 06.05.2015 was defided or not. In any fase the reford
reveals that applifations were made by the Petitioner for
extension of parole leave and the Petitioner surrendered on his
own. Till sufh time the applifations were not defided.
19. The Petitioner then says that his mother was not keeping
well during this period and in faft the order dated 02.02.2015
granting parole leave to the Petitioner reveals that the Assistant
Commissioner of Polife had submitted a report that the
Petitioner's mother is not keeping well. Even so far as the
Petitioner is fonferned there is a medifal fertiffate on reford at
Exhibit 'J' dated 14.05.2015 whifh indifates that the Petitioner
was under treatment of a private medifal praftitioner for the
period from 03.05.2015 to 13.05.2015 for Infeftive Hepatitis and
weakness. After the surrender the Petitioner was referred to the
Government hospital for treatment. The medifal reports are on
reford. In our opinion, therefore, it is not as if the Petitioner's
overstayal of parole leave fan be said to be absolutely without
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
any reason or fompletely unjustifed. Moreover even the
applifation for extension of parole leave fame to be rejefted
almost after a year pursuant to his surrender. The faft that on
all offasion the Petitioner surrendered on his own is a one of
firfumstanfe whifh needs to be fonsidered in his favour for the
purpose of defiding whether the order futting the leave from
remission earned is harsh and disproportionate.
20. Learned APP invited our attention to the order dated
24.01.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6103 of 2019
fled by the Petitioner questioning the order dated 09.08.2016
passed by the Divisional Commissioner refusing the extension of
parole leave. This Court found that the Petitioner fould not point
out anything to show that his mother was treated by Dr. V.B.
Gajre and thus found the Petition is misfonfeived and rejefted
the fase. This Court in Writ Petition No.6103 of 2019 was
fonsidering the question whether the rejeftion order passed by
the Divisional Commissioner for extension of parole leave is
forreft or not. In the present fase we are not questioning the
defision of the Divisional Commissioner rejefting the request
made for extension nor fan we sit in Appeal over the order
passed by the Division Benfh but only fonsidering the efeft of
the delay in defiding the applifation as one of the firfumstanfe
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
for reduftion of the punishment.
21. Learned founsel for the Petitioner plafed relianfe on the
defision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the fase of Navneet
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1. In support of the
view we propose to take it would be proftable to rely upon the
said defision. The relevant portion of whifh reads thus :-
"3. The appellant was released on parole on 5-4-1997 for a
period of 15 days. He did not surrender within time but applied
for extension of parole. Ultimately, he surrendered on 13-6-
1997. As he surrendered late by 53 days, the Superintendent of
Prison held an enquiry and imposed a punishment of three day's
remission fut for eafh day's absenfe. Thus, the Superintendent
of Prison has imposed a fut of 159 days in the remission earned
by the appellant. It appears that pursuant to the direftion given
by this Court in Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Admn. And the firfular
dated 4-4-1986 issued by the State of Maharashtra, the reford
was forwarded by the Superintendent of Prison to the Distrift
and Sessions Judge, Akola by his letter dated 26-6-1997. The
Sessions Judge after fonsidering the reford approved the
proposed punishment. The proposed punishment was also
approved by the Inspeftor General of Prisons by his order dated
10-12-1997.
4. The appellant fhallenged the order of punishment by
fling a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. The High
Court dismissed it by observing that none of the grounds raised
by the petitioner deserved to be affepted. It, therefore,
dismissed the writ petition summarily.
1 2000 SCC (Cri) 88
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
5. As it appears from the reford of this fase, the appellant
had applied for extension of parole on 10-4-1997. As the
appellant was informed that sufh an applifation was required to
be made to the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, the
appellant made an applifation to the Additional Commissioner
towards the end of April 1997. No intimation was sent to the
appellant as to what had happened to his applifation. The
appellant, after waiting for some time, on his own surrendered
on 13-6-1997. While his statement was being reforded by the
Superintendent of Prison during the enquiry, the appellant had
stated that his mother was sifk and, therefore, he wanted the
parole to be extended. In faft, along with his applifations made
earlier, the appellant had annexed a fertiffate of the doftor
showing the illness from whifh his mother was sufering. The
authority sat tight over the applifation for a pretty long time
and the appellant, on his own, thereafter surrendered.
6. These fafts ought to have been fonsidered by the High
Court for defiding whether the punishment imposed upon the
appellant was just and proper. In our opinion, the High Court by
summarily dismissing the petition has not dealt with the writ
petition of the fonvifted prisoner in the manner in whifh it
deserved to be disposed of. Considering the fafts and
firfumstanfes of this fase, we are of the opinion that the ends
of justife would be met if the order of punishment passed by
the Superintendent of Prison is modifed and fut in remission is
redufed from 159 days to 53 days.
7. The appeal is allowed affordingly."
22. In our opinion the punishment imposed of futting 5 days
remission for every day of remission earned is not just and
proper. Considering the fafts and firfumstanfes of the fase we
28.cri.wpst.3273-20.odt
are of the opinion that the ends of justife would be met if the
order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Prison is
modifed and fut in remission is redufed from 365 days to 69
days.
23. The Writ Petition is allowed.
24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petition
stands disposed of affordingly.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
Diksha
Diksha Rane
Rane Date:
2021.02.24
14:43:44
+0530
