Partly allowed

Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Nov 2016WP/3855/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay considered the petitioner's plea for extending parole and setting aside the cutting of remission due to overstay. The court refused the parole extension due to lack of explanation during the overstay period but reduced the cutting of remission ratio from four to two days per day of overstay, partly allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Extension of parole from 11.11.2015 to 11.12.2015 refused; cutting of remission reduced from 4 days to 2 days per day of overstay.

Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 12.crwp.3855.16.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3855 OF 2016

¶4

Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi ] C-5645, Kolhapur Central Prison, ] Kalamba Kolhapur ].. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

].. Respondent

¶8

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State

¶9

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

¶10

DATED : NOVEMBER 30, 2016

¶11

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

¶12

1 Heard both sides.

¶13

2 By order dated 12.8.2015 the petitioner was granted parole for a period of thirty days on the ground of illness of his wife. Pursuant to the said order, he was released on parole on 10.9.2015 for a period of 30 days. On 21.9.2015 the petitioner

¶14

applied for extension of parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said extension was granted and the petitioner had to

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

jdk 2 12.crwp.3855.16.j.doc surrender on 11.11.2015. Thereafter the petitioner made application for second extension of parole which was rejected on 8.11.2016. The petitioner had to surrender on 11.11.2015, however, the petitioner surrendered on 15.12.2015 i.e. after the period of 35 days. On account of this, remission was cut in the ratio of four days for each day of overstay. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner is that his parole be extended by a period of 30 days i.e. from 11.11.2015 to 11.12.2015 and the prison punishment of cutting of remission, be set aside.

¶17

3 It is seen that the petitioner has relied on medical certificate dated 6.12.2015 to show that he himself was admitted in hospital with complaint of chest pain and ECG changes. He was admitted in hospital on 5.12.2015. However, it is seen that the petitioner had to surrender on 11.11.2015 and from 11.11.2015 to 5.12.2015, no explanation has been given by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant extension of parole, however, looking to the medical certificate and the other facts and circumstances of

¶18

this case, we reduce the prison punishment of cutting of remission from 4 days for each day of overtsay to cutting of

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

jdk 3 12.crwp.3855.16.j.doc remission to two days for each day of overstay. Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly in above terms.

¶21

4 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.

¶22

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

¶23

kandarkar

¶24

3 of 3

Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi 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

Jitendra Anandrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Mahadev Tonpe Vs Kalidas Parashram Abhang and Ors.

Kishor Mahadev Tonpe Vs Kalidas Parashram Abhang and Ors.

Babusha Karappa Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anwar Abdul Aziz Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Tukaram Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra