Petitioner challenged cut-off of parole duration due to overstay. Court held new notification not retrospective. Approved parole extension by 19 days and set aside punishment for overstay.
Order of rejection of parole extension appeal set aside; parole extended by 19 days; punishment for overstay set aside.
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.
7. cri wp 5295-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMIAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5295 OF 2017
Rakesh Dattatray Rindhe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
| Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni | Advocate for the Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Mr. Arfan Sait | APP for the State |
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : APRIL 12, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
quashing of the order whereby his remission was cut.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
22.4.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said
application was granted by the Competent Authority by order
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5
7. cri wp 5295-17.doc
dated 19.7.2016. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on 6.8.2016 for a period of 30 days i.e from 6.8.2016 to 5.9.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred first application for extension of parole on 16.8.2016. The said application was granted and the parole was extended by a period of 30 days i.e from 6.9.2016 to 5.10.2016. On account of this extension, the petitioner had
to surrender on 6.10.2016, however, meanwhile on 20.9.2016, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole. The said application was rejected by order dated 18.10.2016. The petitioner surrendered on 25.10.2016. As the petitioner had surrendered on 25.10.2016 and the second application for extension of parole was not granted, there was overstay of 19 days on the part of the petitioner. On account of this, remission was cut in the ratio of 1:3 that is for 19 days of overstay, remission of 57 days was cut. Meanwhile, being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his second application for extension of parole,
the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
7. cri wp 5295-17.doc
dismissed by order dated 17.4.2017.
appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected only on the ground that in view of notification dated 26.8.2016, the maximum period for which parole could be granted was 60 days and no further extension could be granted. In
relation to this, we would like to discuss two aspects. The first is conduct of the petitioner. The second application of the petitioner for extension of parole was rejected on 18.10.2016. This was communicated by the Prison Authorities vide letter dated 22.10.2016 to the concerned police station i.e Haveli Police Staion, Pune Rural which is closest to where the petitioner was residing. After receipt of
the said order, the concerned Police Station communicated this order to the petitioner by letter dated 25.10.2016. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner surrendered to the prison on 25.10.2016. Thus, it is seen that as soon as the petitioner
was communicated the order of rejection, he immediately on
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5
7. cri wp 5295-17.doc
the very same day surrendered back to the prison. It appears that the petitioner was in anticipation that his application would be granted, hence, after 6.10.2016, he did not surrender back to the prison, however, as soon as, he was communicated that his application was rejected, he immediately surrendered back to the prison. Had the petitioner not surrendered back to the prison even after the communication of rejection order to him, then we may have held it against the petitioner, however, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that it needs to be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner.
notification dated 26.8.2016 cannot be made applicable to
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5
7. cri wp 5295-17.doc
the case of the petitioner, hence, we set aside the order of rejecting the application dated 18.10.2016 as well as order of rejecting the appeal dated 17.4.2017. In view of the facts of
this case, we are inclined to extend the parole by a period of
19 days i.e from 6.10.2016 to 25.10.2016. Any prison
punishment imposed on account of overstay is set aside.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
5 of 5
jfoanz vkacsjdj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the notification dated 26.8.2016 limiting parole extension to 60 days retrospectively applies to the petitioner's application filed earlier.
Whether the petitioner's immediate surrender upon rejection of parole extension negates the overstay misconduct.
Whether the order of rejection of the second parole extension and appeal be set aside to grant 19 days extension.
Rakesh Dattatray Rindhe
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
