Allowed

Amol Ambadas Bankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2018WP/1009/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, convicted and serving sentence, sought extension of parole for his mother's illness and relief regarding remission cut due to parole overstay. Court declined parole extension but exercised discretion to reduce the remission cut on humanitarian grounds and ordered return of security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Parole extension denied. Remission cut reduced to 2 days per day of overstay; security deposit ordered to be returned.

Amol Ambadas Bankar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

skc 33-CRWP-1009-18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1009 OF 2018

¶4

Amol Ambadas Bankar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra

¶5

...Respondent

¶6

Ms Rohini Dandekar – Advocate appointed for Petitioner. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar – APP for State – Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C. J. & M. S. SONAK, J.

¶8

DATE : 18 APRIL 2018

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per:SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J)

¶10

1] Heard both sides.

¶11

2] The petitioner is praying for extension of parole.

¶12

3] The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 3^rd March 2014, on the ground of illness of his mother. The said application was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government. The Government granted

¶13

the application by order dated 25^th August 2015. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on

¶14

skc 33-CRWP-1009-18

¶15

29^th August 2015 for a period of 30 days. Thus the petitioner had to report back to the prison on 28^th September 2015. Thereafter the petitioner preferred first application for extension of parole for a further period of 30 days, this application was preferred on 3^rd September 2015. The said application was rejected by order dated 21^st September 2015. Meanwhile, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole on 7^th October 2015 seeking further extension of parole by a period of 30 days. As the first application of the petitioner was rejected on 21^st September 2015, the petitioner was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison on 20^th October 2015. Thus there was overstay of 22 days on the part of the petitioner. On account of overstay of 22 days prison punishment of cutting of remission of 88 days was imposed on the petitioner i.e. for each day of overstay 4 days of remission was cut. The petitioner is seeking extension of this period of overstay.

¶16

4] The petitioner has sought extension of parole on the ground that his mother was ailing and he relied on medical certificate dated 2^nd September 2015 which showed that

¶17

page 2 of 3

¶18

skc 33-CRWP-1009-18

¶19

his mother was suffering from hypertension, anemia and breathlessness. Certificate of the doctor shows that the mother of the petitioner needs prolonged treatment and investigation and that she was unfit for surgery.

¶20

5] We do not think that the petitioner's mother's ailment was so serious in nature that the parole period should be extended.

¶21

6] Ms Dandekar states that at least on humanitarian ground the prison punishment may be reduced.

¶22

7] In view of the prayer made, on humanitarian ground, the prison punishment is reduced to ratio of cutting of remission of 2 days for each day of overstay i.e. instead of cutting of remission of 88 days, the remission of only 44 days will be cut. Security deposit which is forfeited, be returned back to the petitioner.

¶23

8] Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶24

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

¶25

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

¶26

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

page 3 of 3

Amol Ambadas Bankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Ambadas Bankar 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

Sunil Zumbarya Kale @ Bapu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Zumbarya Kale @ Bapu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Zumbarya Kale @ Bapu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Anant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pyarelal Shridhar Keer @ Pahalwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.