1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2077 OF 2008 Eknath Kalu Mhatre. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.. .... Respondents. Mr. N. N. Gavankar for the Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused / prisoner during the whole period of serving sentence had on different occasion over stayed furlough / parole for 197 days. His co-accused over stayed on different occasion for 226 days. The petitioner was given a punishment of 1 x 3 days on most of the occasion and as a result he got the punishment by which he lost remission of 551 days. On the other hand, his co-accused, who had overstayed in all for 226 days was given a punishment of 1 x 1 day and he got deduction of only 226 days remission. As a result, co-accused has already been released. 2 2. Last time when this case came up, we sought information and the learned Public Prosecutor is present. He has not disputed the fact tas canvassed by the petitioner and as narrated hereinabove. There is no explanation except that the petitioner while over staying did not surrender himself but was arrested. Whereas, his co-accused although over stayed for a much longer period than the petitioner but surrendered himself. Therefore, he was given punishment of 1 x 1 and the petitioner was given punishment of 1 x 3 days. This reason is itself arbitrary. We understand that even after deduction of 551 days from the remission of the petitioner, the petitioner becomes entitled to release in March, 2009. 3. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct that the punishment be taken as 1 x 1 day and petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. R. JOSHI, J.)