Dismissed

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016WP/394/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner prayed to set aside an order deducting remission period. Court noted the jail superintendent's proposal was not accepted and the Divisional Commissioner favored the petitioner, holding the grievance redressed and dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of allowing avowedly that the grievance stands redressed as the proposal for deduction was not accepted.

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

Cr.WP 394/16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.394/2016

¶6

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri S.S. Paturkar, Advocate appointed for petitioner.
Shri S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 18.04.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions

¶17

to respondents and to set aside the order dated 4.5.2011
passed by respondent no.2 directing deduction of period
of 236 days out of the period of remission earned by the
petitioner.

¶18

2]It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner
has overstayed for a period of 59 days while he was

¶19

released on parole in the year 2010. The petitioner

¶20

Cr.WP 394/16

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

tendered explanation for the over-stay, which was
accepted by the Divisional Commissioner and extension of
parole for 60 days has been permitted by virtue of the
order passed on 11.4.2016.

¶23

3]The petitioner has approached this Court merely on
the basis of apprehension since the Superintendent of
Yerwada Jail had earlier recommended the imposition of
punishment by way of deduction in period of remission for
a period of 236 days.

¶24

4]Since the proposal forwarded by the Superintendent

¶25

of Jail has not been accepted and the case of the
petitioner has been considered favourably by the
Divisional Commissioner, the grievance raised by the
petitioner in the instant petition stands redressed. The
criminal writ petition as such stands disposed of.

¶26

5] Shri S.S. Paturkar, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae shall be paid legal remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.

¶27

 (K.L. WADANE, J.)

¶28

ndk/ cr1841619.doc

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole 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

Kailas Shankar Navekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devidas S/O Lokdoji Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Sayyad Haroon S/O Sayyad Rauf Vs Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Other

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Sayyanna Bakwad, C-4767 Vs the State of Maharashtra