Bombay High Court
Tara Sudhakar Chauhan (In Jail) vs D.I.G. (Prison) (East), Nagpur And ... on 28 March, 2016
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: B.R. Gavai, A.S. Chandurkar
1 WP109-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.109/2016
...
Tara Sudhakar Chauhan,
Convict No.8466,
Central Prison, Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
.. Versus ..
1. D.I.G. (Prisons) (East),
Nagpur.
2. Jail Superintendent,
Nagpur Central Jail,
Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. R.V. Kalia, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.R. Gavai & A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.
DATED : March 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per A.S. Chandurkar, J. )
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent no.1 thereby proposing jail punishment of cutting ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:46:46 ::: 2 WP109-16.odt remission of the petitioner to the extent of 335 days. The acceptance of said proposal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also under challenge.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially released on furlough on 15.02.2013. However, due to the illness of her son, the petitioner had moved an application for extending the said leave on 20.02.2013. The said application was not decided and the same was kept pending. In the meanwhile, as the health of the petitioner's son deteriorated, the petitioner was required to further continue on leave so as to enable necessary treatment of her son.
Another application dated 03.04.2013 was moved by the petitioner seeking further extension of the leave. However, by the impugned orders without considering these factors, the petitioner has been deprived of the remission.
4. Ms. R.V. Kalia, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and has submitted that as the petitioner had surrendered late when she was released on parole, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
5. The perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had moved an application for extension of parole leave on 20.02.2013.
Same was decided ultimately on 09.03.2013 by rejecting the prayer ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:46:46 ::: 3 WP109-16.odt made therein. The medical certificates dated 6.3.2013 and 28.03.2013 indicate the ailments of the petitioner's son.
Considering the fact that the application for extension of parole leave was moved by the petitioner on two occasions coupled with the aforesaid medical certificates, the order proposing to refuse extension of parole leave is liable to be set aside. Similarly in the facts of the present case, the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur accepting the proposal of depriving the petitioner from getting remission of 335 days, is also liable to be set aside on same count.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order proposing to deprive the petitioner of remission as well as the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c) with no order as to costs.
(A.S. Chandurkar, J. ) (B.R. Gavai, J.)
...
halwai/p.s.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:46:46 :::