A bench dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an order reducing 60 days remission due to late surrender. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that personal illness required an earlier parole extension request, finding the order on merits merit-sufficient not to be quashed.
The petition was dismissed. No penalty order was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Cri.W.P.33.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2012
Prakash Mohan Patil ...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Mrs.Shilpa S.Awchar Advocate for petitioner.
(Appointed)
Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
T.V.NALAWADE, JJ.
DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2012.
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner prays for setting aside the
order of penalty imposed, dated 20th February,
2006 directing reduction of 60 days remission for
late surrenderer to the jail.
2 Cri.W.P.33.12
3. The petitioner was released on parole of 60
days, according to the learned counsel. By
application dated 21st December, 2005 he
requested for extension of parole, as his wife was
not keeping well. According to the petitioner, his
wife was suffering from typhoid. Police Report was
called by the Jail authorities on 6th January,
2006. Considering the record, the authorities
rejected request of the petitioner on 20th
February, 2006. The petitioner surrendered to the
jail authority on 2nd February,2006.
4. Even if petitioner's wife was not keeping well
and the petitioner's presence was required, the
petitioner ought to have requested for extension
much earlier to 21st December, 2005. The
authorities concerned, on merits rejected the
request of the petitioner for extension of parole.
Considering all aspects of the matter, we are not
inclined to allow the petition. The petition
stands dismissed. The counsel was appointed for
the petitioner. The Secretary, High Court Legal
3 Cri.W.P.33.12
Services Sub Committee to pay professional fees to
the counsel appointed, as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
[T.V.NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of penalty imposing reduction of 60 days remission for late surrender should be set aside.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for extension of parole was arbitrary.
Prakash Mohan Patil
State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court