The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for reduction of prison punishment imposed for overstaying parole. Noting the petitioner absconded instead of seeking an extension or surrendering, the court refused leniency and discharged the rule.
The prayer for reduction of prison punishment is rejected and the rule is discharged.
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.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2014
Pramod Bhaurao Jadhav
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
| Ms. Rohini Dandekar | Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Mrs. A.S. Pai | APP for the State |
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : JUNE 20, 2016.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
for a period of 30 days. The petitioner had to surrender back
to prison after 30 days, however, the petitioner did not do so
and he absconded. Ultimately, he had to be traced and
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
arrested by the police and brought back to prison. There was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 76 days. On account of this overstay, prison punishment was imposed on the petitioner of cutting of remission of five days for each day of overstay. The prayer of the petitioner is that the prison punishment be reduced and one day of remission be cut off for each day of overstay.
leave as his father was ill, however, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not prefer any application for extension of parole and instead, the petitioner absconded. The petitioner even thereafter did not surrender back to prison on his own but he had to be traced and arrested by
the police and brought back to prison. Had the petitioner surrendered on his own, we may have considered reducing the punishment a little, however, in view of the fact that no application for extension of parole was preferred by the petitioner to the concerned Authorities and the fact that he
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought
back to prison indicates that no leniency ought to be shown
in the case of the petitioner, hence, rule is discharged.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether prison punishment for overstaying parole should be reduced given the petitioner's failure to seek extension and subsequent arrest.
Pramod Bhaurao Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
