Bombay High Court
Kunal S/O Anil Jaiswal vs State Of Mah., Thr. Secretary, ... on 19 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
criwp1089.19.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1089/2019
PETITIONER : Kunal Anil Jaiswal,
(In JaIL) Aged about Major, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Convict No. C-9078, Central
Prison, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Department
of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Superintendent,
Central Jail, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R.Fule, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.M.Ghodeswar, APP for Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 19/01/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
.1] Heard the respective counsel for the parties.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
criwp1089.19.odt
3] This petition is based upon the suppression of material
facts and therefore, on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4] It is the contention of the petitioner that the last date of
his surrender before the jail authority was 31.03.2016 and before
expiry of that date, the petitioner had by an application dated
14.03.2016 made an application to the jail authority for extension of
the parole already granted to him, but, that application was not
decided within time and therefore, the petitioner went to the jail
authority for his surrender on 03.04.2016, but his surrender was not
accepted and later on the petitioner was brought to the prison on
17.04.2016. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
is the ground which would show that the impugned order of
imposing punishment of 64 days at the rate of 4X17 days cut in
remission is erroneous.
5] Shri Ghodeswar, learned APP submits that from the fact
that the petitioner was required to be brought back by arresting him
would itself show that the petitioner does not deserve the relief
prayed for in this petition.
criwp1089.19.odt
6] Although the ground which has now been canvassed
orally by the learned counsel for the petitioner is there, the material
fact that the application dated 14.03.2016 of the petitioner was
rejected by the jail authority has not been mentioned in the petition
by the learned counsel for the petitioner. By suppressing this
material fact, the petitioner has tried to earn sympathy of this Court,
although now it has transpired that the petitioner was
communicated the order of rejection and according to the petitioner,
and it was on 21.04.2016. If the application of the petitioner
regarding extension of parole was not granted or was kept pending
by the jail authority, nothing had prevented the petitioner from
surrendering before the jail authority on the due date. But, the
petitioner had not done so and by misleading this Court has tried to
take advantage of his own wrong. Such an attempt cannot be
tolerated by this Court. The petition deserves to be dismissed and it
is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.
7] In the present case, we are not inclined to pass any order
regarding payment of legal remuneration to the appointed counsel
criwp1089.19.odt
for the reason that instead of assisting the Court, learned counsel has
tried to mislead the Court, as the learned counsel for the petitioner
do not require to assist the Court in a manner as dispassionate as it
should be expected from him.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
