Dismissed

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2016WP/2298/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging imposition of punishment under Section 48A of the Prisons Act for petitioner's overstay during furlough. Court found no sufficient cause for overstay, upholding deprivation of remission and discharge of writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; order imposing punishment under Section 48A Prisons Act communicated to petitioner.

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2298 OF 2015

¶5

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2016.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.

¶18

The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on furlough on 2.9.2007 for a period of 14 days.

¶19

The said period was extended by another 14 days, however,

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶21

5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc

¶22

the petitioner did not report back to the prison in time. Ultimately, the petitioner had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought back to the prison on 8.2.2009.

¶23

Thus, there was overstay of 496 days on the part of the petitioner.

¶24

As the petitioner had overstayed for 496 days, prison

¶25

punishment was imposed on him of cutting of remission of 5 days for each day of overstay. Normally, in case of large period of overstay and specially where the prisoner is arrested and brought back to prison, punishment is imposed of cutting of 5 days remission for each day of overstay which has been done in the present case by order dated 26.12.2009. Copy of the said order is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The petitioner had overstayed for 496 days. If 5 days of remission was cut off for each day of overstay, then for 146 days of overstay, 2480 days of remission would be cut. The petitioner was convicted by judgment and order dated 2.5.2006 in Sessions Case No. 2 of

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶27

5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc

¶28

2004 by the learned Sessions Judge, Baramati, Pune. When

¶29

the petitioner was released on furlough, he had to his credit

¶30

only 135 days of remission.

¶31

Section 48A of Chapter 11 of the Prisons Act provides

¶32

that if any prisoner fails without sufficient cause to observe

¶33

any of the conditions on which furlough or parole was

¶34

granted, he shall be deemed to have committed a prison offfence and prison punishment can be imposed on him after obtaining explanation. The explanation was sought from the petitioner and the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory.

¶35

Section 48A (3) states that a prisoner who has not

¶36

observed the conditions on which parole or furlough was granted to him, prison punishment of loss of privileges admissible under the remission of furlough or parole can be

¶37

imposed on him. As the petitioner had overstayed for 496 days, prison punishment of cutting of remission of 5 days for

¶38

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶39

5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc

¶40

each day of overstay has been imposed. As and when the petitioner completes the prison punishment, he would be readmitted to the remission system. Thus, no case is made

¶41

out for interference. Rule is discharged.

¶42

The order be communicated to the petitioner who is

¶43

lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

¶44

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶45

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhijit Bharat Babar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

High Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Marutrao Patil Vs the Inspector General of Prison and Ors.

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sartaj Mumtaj Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.