Partly allowed

Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Aug 2016WP/3809/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay ruled on a writ petition challenging prison punishment imposed for parole overstay. The court granted a 30-day parole extension on humanitarian grounds but held one day of stay as overstay, setting aside the punishment for that specific day only while maintaining penalties for the earlier period.

What did the court decide?

Extension of 30-day parole granted; prison punishment for one-day overstay set aside; earlier overstay penalty maintained.

Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3809 OF 2015

¶3

Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶4

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State

¶5

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶6

DATED : AUGUST 03, 2016

¶7

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

¶8

1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶9

2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application came to be granted and the petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days from 11.2.2015 to 13.3.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole. Being first application for extension of parole, the said

¶10

1 of 4

¶11

jdk 2 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc

¶12

application was granted and the parole period was extended from 14.3.2015 to 12.4.2015. Thereafter the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole for a period of 30 days. The said application is dated 31.3.2015. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 13.4.2015. The petitioner surrendered on his own to the prison on 13.5.2015. Thus, as the second application for extension of parole was not granted, the period of 31 days was held to be overstay on the part of the petitioner and the prison punishment was imposed by cutting of remission of 4 days for each day of overstay. Thus, for 31 days of overstay, the remission was cut for a period of 124 days i.e. in the ratio of 1:4. The prayer of the petitioner is that the prison punishment imposed on the ground of the overstay, be quashed.

¶13

3 The reason for the petitioner seeking second extension of parole was that his wife had "Bronchial Asthma" and his two daughters were getting married on 29.4.2015. The second application for extension of parole was rejected on the ground that the application was preferred late. The application should have been preferred by 28.3.2015, however, the

¶14

2 of 4

¶15

jdk 3 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc

¶16

application for second extension of parole was preferred on 31.3.2015. It is on this sole ground that the application of the petitioner for second extension of parole, came to be rejected.

¶17

4 As far as the illness of his wife is concerned, the petitioner has annexed medical certificate which shows that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from "Bronchial Asthma". The genuineness of this certificate is not doubted by the prosecution. The additional reason for the petitioner to seek second extension of parole is that both his daughters were getting married on 29.4.2015. The fact that daughters of the petitioner were getting married on 29.4.2015 is also not controverted by the prosecution. Thus, it is seen that the reason for seeking second extension of parole appears to be genuine. In this view of the matter, on humanitarian ground, we are inclined to extend the period of parole. However, it is to be noted that parole can be granted along with extension for a maximum period of 90 days, however, the petitioner came back to the prison after 91 days. Thus, as far as period of 30 days is concerned, we grant extension of parole, however, for one day, it will be deemed to be overstay on the part of the

¶18

3 of 4

¶19

jdk 4 2.crwp.3809.15.j.doc

¶20

petitioner and the prison punishment imposed on account of one day overstay is not interfered with.

¶21

5 In view of the above, we grant extension of 30 days of parole to the petitioner. Any prison punishment imposed on account of the said overstay, is set aside.

¶22

6 Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶23

7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nasik Road Central Prison.

¶24

8 Legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate is quantified at Rs.2500/-.

¶25

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

¶26

kandarkar

¶27

4 of 4

Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Anil Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas @ Babu Bhaguram Shirke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Popat Khandu Pisal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rupesh Tukaram Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Bhikaji Gawde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Bhikaji Gawde Vs Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison)