Bombay High Court
Kailash S/O Jagdev Gade vs The State Of Mah. Thr. ... on 5 September, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
2023:BHC-NAG:13250-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2023
Kailash s/o Jagdev Gade, age - 60, C-63,
Open Priosn Amravati, Dist Amravati.
(In jail)
... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Superintendent of Prison, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati.
2. The D.I.G., (East Prison), Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur.
... RESPONDENTS.
_____________________________________________________________
Shri A.Y. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 05.09.2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of
learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is in jail from 04.01.2007.
The petitioner's case was considered for remission after completion of
14 years of actual imprisonment. On considering the petitioner's case
vide order dated 21.05.2022, the petitioner was directed to be released
after completion of 22 years of imprisonment.
4. It is the petitioner's grievance that including remission, he
has already undergone 22 years, and thus, he deserves for release.
According to the petitioner, he was surrendered late in past for which
no action was taken. For instance, the petitioner surrendered late in the
years 2011, 2012 and 2016 but no remission cut punishment was
imposed within time, and now, during pendency of this petition that
exercise has been done. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also
attracted our attention to all six judicial appraisals pertaining to
remission cut to contend that without application of mind, those orders
have been passed. Particularly, the petitioner relied on paragraphs 17
and 18 of the decision of this Court in case of Vishal Baban Vanne vs.
the State of Maharashtra 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 2259 wherein this Court
has emphasized the need of considering the reply filed by the convict
and to pass judicial order depending upon satisfaction of the reason for
late surrender. It is abundant clear that none of the judicial appraisal
order bears a single worded reason meaning thereby there is total non-
application of mind. Obviously, those orders run contrary to the dictum
laid by this Court in above referred decision.
5. In view of above, we hereby quash and set aside all six
remission cut orders. We direct to the Superintendent of Jail to forward
all fresh proposals with convict's reply for judicial appraisal within two
weeks from the date of this order. If the prisoner has not submitted
reply in either of the case, he should be given an opportunity to give
reply within four days from the intimation.
6. The learned Sessions Judge shall consider the reasons
accorded by the petitioner for late surrender and in view of the above
referred decision of this Court, shall pass the appropriate judicial
appraisal order demonstrating the application of mind. The said
exercise shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of the
fresh proposal from the Jail Authority. On receipt of judicial appraisal,
the Superintendent of Jail shall pass the appropriate order within two
weeks thereafter, and report the compliance to the Registry of this
Court.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute
in above terms. No order as to costs.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/09/2023 18:18:42
