Petitioner applied for parole extension. Court noted a prior detailed order by a different Bench upheld cutting of remission for overstay. Finding no ground to challenge that upheld punishment, court discharged the Rule.
Rule is discharged. The order will be communicated to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2. CRI WP 4109-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4109 OF 2017
Niranjansingh Bharatsingh Dudhani
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : APRIL 6, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
extended by 60 days. The petitioner preferred an application
for parole on 27.2.2016. The said application was granted by
order dated 4.5.2016 for a period of 30 days. Pursuant to
the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
2. CRI WP 4109-17.doc
6.5.2016 for a period of 30 days. The petitioner preferred
first application for extension of parole on 17.5.2016 seeking extension of parole for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole on 17.6.2016 seeking extension of parole for a further period of 30 days. Both the applications came to be rejected by order dated 14.9.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed. Meanwhile, the petitioner surrendered to the prison on 5.8.2016 that is after overstay of 60 days.
3. As there was overstay of 60 days, remission in the ratio
of 1:4 was cut i.e for 60 days of overstay, remission of 240
days was cut. As stated earlier, the petitioner has now prayed that his parole leave should be extended by a period
of 60 days.
petitioner had preferred Cri. Writ Petition No. 817 of 2017
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
2. CRI WP 4109-17.doc
before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The said petition came to be rejected by order dated 3.8.2017. Learned APP pointed out that in the said petition, the petitioner had prayed that the prison punishment imposed on him of cutting of remission for overstay of 60 days be set aside. The overstay of 60 days in Writ Petition No. 817 of 2017 is pertaining to the very same
period that we are concerned with in the present case. The order dated 3.8.2017 is a detailed order. After considering all the facts in detail, the petition came to be rejected. This means that the prison punishment of cutting of remission on account of overstay for a period of 60 days came to be upheld by order dated 3.8.2017which means that there was no good ground made out to show that the overstay was on some good ground. In this view of the matter, now, it is not possible for us to consider the prayer for extension of parole, hence, Rule is discharged.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
2. CRI WP 4109-17.doc
is lodged in Nasik Road Central Prison.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ]
[ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether parole leave can be extended when a detailed order by a different Bench has upheld the cutting of remission due to overstay.
Whether the Rule should be discharged in view of the rejection of a similar prayer by a High Court Bench.
Niranjansingh Bharatsingh Dudhani
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
