Partly allowed

Vinod Damodar Ghogle v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 May 2017WP/1649/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In prayer for parole, the petitioner was released on parole for 30 days, surrendered on the 90th day due to lack of response to extension applications (which were rejected later), and was punished for overstaying. The Court reduced the prison punishment severity from 4 days to 1 day per day of overstay on humanitarian grounds. Rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

The prison punishment of 'cutting of remission of four days for each day of overstay' is reduced to 'cutting of remission of one day for each day of overstay'.

Vinod Damodar Ghogle Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

11. cri wp 1649-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2017

Vinod Damodar Ghogle

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Ms. Rohini Dandekar	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : MAY 2, 2017.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made

¶18

returnable forthwith and the matter is head finally.

¶19

The petitioner has preferred an application for parole

¶20

on account of medical problem of his mother. The medical

¶21

problem was that his mother required surgery of the spine.

¶22

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶23

11. cri wp 1649-17.doc

¶24

By order dated 26.2.2016, the petitioner was released on

¶25

parole for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred first application for extension of parole on 8.3.2016. In the said application, he had sought extension of

¶26

parole for a period of 30 days. The petitioner did not receive any reply thereon. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole on 12.4.2016. By

¶27

the said application, he sought further extension of parole for a period of 30 days. The petitioner did not receive any reply in relation to both his applications for extension of parole, hence, he surrendered back to the prison on 28.5.2016 i.e on

¶28

the 90th day of he being released on parole. Both the applications were thereafter rejected on 12.8.2016.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that if he had been informed earlier that his applications for extension of parole were rejected, he would have reported back to the prison immediately. However, as he was not informed about the decision on his application, he was under impression that

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶31

11. cri wp 1649-17.doc

¶32

extensions would have been granted, hence, he surrendered back to the prison on 90th day.

¶33

According to the Prison Authorities, as the petitioner

¶34

was released on parole for 30 days, he had to report back to the prison on 26.3.2016 as his applications for extension of parole were rejected. However, as stated earlier, the order

¶35

of rejection is 12.8.2016 i.e much after the petitioner surrendered back to the prison. It is an admitted fact that both the applications were rejected by order dated 12.8.2016 i.e almost three months after the petitioner had surrendered back to the prison. As the petitioner did not surrender in time, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and prison punishment was imposed on him of cutting of remission of 4 days for each day of overstay. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the prison punishment be set aside.

¶36

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶37

11. cri wp 1649-17.doc

¶38

Looking to all the above facts, on humanitarian ground,

¶39

we are inclined to reduce the prison punishment from cutting

¶40

remission of four days for each day of overstay to cutting

¶41

remission of one day for each day of overstay.

¶42

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶43

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who

¶44

is in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.

¶45

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶46

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Vinod Damodar Ghogle v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Damodar Ghogle 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

Dattatraya Chandrakant Kakade Vs the District Magistrate and Ors.

Narayan Yajindar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramakabal Ramkrupal Dubey and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs Smt. Tejaswini Reghunath Galande

Vinayak Madhav Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra