1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 167 OF 2010 *** Raju Haidar Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra and others *** 1. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. He seeks leave to carry out the amendment and addition of Jail Authority, which was permitted by this Court by earlier order passed on 30th June, 2010 in Criminal Application No.2247 of 2010. Permission granted. Such amendment to be carried out by the Petitioner during the course of the day. Learned A.P.P. takes notice for the added Respondent. Learned A.P.P. points out affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondents. According to him, separate reply now, is not necessary. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner seeks following reliefs in this writ petition: "12. B) By issuing Writ of Mandamus 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. or any other Writ or direction in the like nature this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to calculate the days as per the order passed by this Honourable Court in view of the provision of Eemission Rules and if it is found that applicant has completed the sentence he may be released." 4. This petition is filed by the Petitioner on 15th February, 2010. In response to the notice, reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents (page 86). It has been affirmed by Mr. Brahmadev S/o Manikrao Latpate, Jailor, Group-II, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, on 12th July, 2010. 5. The petitioner was charged and tried for the offence punishable under section 366, 506 (2), 504, 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 376 (g) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3 (1) (i) (ii) (xi) and 2 (v) of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1988) by the competent Court. Apart from the present Petitioner, two other accused were also tried and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and fine along with default sentences. Suffice to notice that the present petitioner is undergoing punishment imposed upon him for the offence punishable under section 376 (g). The conviction and sentence imposed on the present Petitioner was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2002. This appeal has been heard by this Court and partly allowed. Judgment of the trial Court accordingly has been modified. The sentence which was imposed upon Petitioner by the trial Court for the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1988 was quashed and set aside. Sentence imposed upon the present Petitioner for the offence under section 506 (2) read with section 34 as well as under section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. was upheld, however, separate sentence and fine for these offence, was quashed and set aside. This Court has also directed that the Petitioner shall undergo minimum sentence of R.I. for 10 years eatch. Petitioner was also convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 376. Sentence of offence under section 376 (2) (g) and section 366 of Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, awarded to the Petitioner, were upheld and confirmed. However, they were directed to run concurrently. 6. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has alleged that modified sentence by this Court in Appeal No.115 of 2002 has been undergone by him. He come from poor family, has to maintain his old aged parents who are dependent on him. According to him, he is in jail since his date of arrest. His behaviour in jail was good and satisfactory and, therefore, seeks release. 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 7. Learned A.P.P. has pointed out affidavit in reply. It is not in dispute that the present Petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2002 challenging judgment and conviction awarded by the trial Court. In para 5 of the reply, it has been pleaded by the respondents that the Petitioner was released on parole on 6th March, 2003 for the period of 30 days as per Rules. He sought for extension, which was considered favourably for further 30 days. Petitioner, after expiration of extension of parole, was supposed to resume incarceration. He did not. The petitioner was required to be arrested by police and accordingly was arrested on 9th October, 2006 and was consigned to jail. According to the affiant, petitioner had overstayed for about 1250 days. Remission of 100 days has been reduced from his permanent balance remission book. It is further stated by the affiant in this 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. para 5 that if the Petitioner completes jail term probably he would be released from jail on 27th May, 2014. The affiant has annexed R/1 history sheet of the present Petitioner. In para 6 it has been contended that the Application dated 16th April, 2010 was made by mother of the Petitioner viz. Naina Haidar Shaikh. Said application is not received by the Respondent authorities. 8. We have seen Annexure R/1 with the assistance of learned counsel present before the Court. This Annexure R/1 is under the signature of Superintendent, Yerwada Central Jail, Pune. We have seen this entire table R/1. This R/1 supports the statements made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents. 9. In the case on hand, petitioner did not challenge removal of his name from permanent remission book. Prayers made by the petitioner have been referred by us in the 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. foregoing paragraph. In our view, petitioner is not entitled for the prayers made by him in this writ petition. We are not inclined to consider the petition favourably. However, we make it clear that in future if petitioner undergoes the jail term, shall be released in accordance with the provisions of law. If he makes some representation, it shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of law and in that circumstance this order may not be impediment in the way of the present Petitioner. 10. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:30/07/2010. ans/167