1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1079 OF 2010 Shrirang Ramchandra Kare .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Vijay Gavad i/b Mr.M.M.Najmi for the petitioner. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Rule. Mrs.Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. waives services for the respondent-State of Maharashtra. 3. This is a petition received from the jail and the petitioner - Shrirang Ramchandra Kare is presently undergoing sentence of life imprisonment at open prison at Paithan. He was released on parole and he overstayed the parole leave by one day. The jail authority, therefore, passed the order by punishing him to reduce his period of remission by two days and his surety amount was impounded. The said order came to be challenged in criminal writ petition no.1337 of 2009. It came to be allowed on 11th August, 2009 with the following order: “The petitioner was granted parole and he overstayed by one day and surrendered himself. Now the surety amount has been impounded and he has also been S 2 punished by reducing his period of remission by two days. According to the guidelines which are in force as on today, the petitioner could have been left with only a warning. Therefore, in these circumstances the impugned order is set-aside.” 4. The petitioner has pointed out by his fresh petition dated 29.3.2009 that the surety amount of Rs.2,000/- has not yet been refunded to him and, therefore, he seeks directions to the jail authority. The Superintendent of open district prision at Paithan by his report dated 18.3.2010 submitted to the Registrar of this court has stated that the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by this court does not specify whether the surety amount of Rs.2,000/- was required to be refunded to the petitioner. Mrs.Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. on the basis of instructions received by her, re-iterates the very same ground. 5. Our order dated 11.8.2009 is clear and self explanatory. The impugned order was set aside by noting down that the guidelines in force permitted only punishment of warning if the petitioner had surrendered to the jail himself and late by one day. The punishment of reduction of remission by two days as well as impounding of surety amount was set aside by this court and consequently, the jail authorities were required to refund the surety amount to the petitioner. No clarification is required to be given on the face of this order and explanation now placed before us is far from satisfactory. 6. Hence this petition succeeds and the Superintendent of Open 3 District prison at Paithan is hereby directed to refund the surety amount of Rs.2,000/- within one week from today and submit compliance report to the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from today through learned A.P.P. Rule is made absolute in terms of above directions. (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)