Bombay High Court
PINTU @ LAXMAN SARJERAO LONDHEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the authorities correctly applied the earlier judgment and remission rules.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe, filed a criminal writ petition seeking remission earned from 8 February 2015, contending that under a 13 November 2018 notification he should have been re‑entered into the Remission Book on 9 February 2015 after completing six years from his surrender on 8 February 2009. He alleged that instead he was re‑entered only in 2022, a delay of about 13 years, and therefore sought relief. The State argued that the petitioner was never removed from the Remission Book and that his total remission was substantially reduced because he remained outside jail without surrendering, citing a Division Bench judgment (Criminal Writ Petition No.2298 of 2015) which held that an overstay of 496 days resulted in a deduction of 2,480 days of remission (5 days per day of overstay). The Court examined the chart annexed to the affidavit, found the authorities had correctly applied the earlier judgment and the applicable remission rules, and concluded that the petition was misconceived. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the correct date for re‑entry of the petitioner into the Remission Book under the 13 November 2018 notification?
- Whether the petitioner’s remission should be reduced due to his overstay outside jail and, if so, how the reduction is calculated.
Subjects
- remission
- prison
- overstay
- remission book
- criminal writ petition
- sentence reduction
Judgment
Gokhale 1 of 3 10-wp-3209-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3209 OF 2025
Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mrs. Nasreen S. K. Ayubi for Petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
PC :
1. The petition is filed with the following prayer (b):
“(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant the
remission earned from 8.2.2015 till date in the
interest of justice; and good conscience, as per the
Notification dtd.13.11.2018.”
2. As can be seen that the prayer is quite vague. However,
from the petition, the main challenge appears to be in paragraph-6
which reads as follows:
“(6) The Petitioner states that as per the Notification
dated 13.11.2018, the Petitioner was entitled to
produce before the Committee after six years from his
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2026.08.07
10:47:41
+0530
2 of 3 10-wp-3209-25
surrender i.e. from 8.2.2009. The Petitioner states
that the Petitioner was entitled to be re-entered in the
Remission Book (System) on or about 9.2.2015 after
completion of six years from 8.2.2009. The Petitioner
states that the Petitioner has been re-entered in
Remission Book in 2022 that is after lapse of almost
13 years from 8.2.2009. Hereto annexed and marked
as Annexure ‘D’ is the copy of said Notification dated
13.11.2018.”
3. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that he was
entitled to be re-entered in the Remission Book on 09.02.2015
after completion of six years from 08.02.2009. However, he was
re-entered in the Remission Book in 2022.
4. Learned APP submitted that the contention is not
correct. She invited our attention to the chart annexed to the
Affidavit in reply. It shows that he was never removed from the
Remission Book. However, the total remission earned by him was
substantially affected because of his remaining outside the Jail
without surrendering. Learned APP relied on the Judgment passed
by a Division Bench of this Court dated 20.09.2016 passed in
Criminal Writ Petition No.2298 of 2015. That judgment has
attained finality. The said judgment mentions that the Petitioner
3 of 3 10-wp-3209-25
had overstayed for 496 days. If 5 days of remission was cut off for
each day of overstay, then for 496 days of overstay, 2480 days of
remission would be cut. Accordingly, the chart annexed to the
Affidavit in reply shows deduction of those 2480 days from the
total number of remission earned by the Petitioner.
5. In this view of the matter, we find that the present
petition is misconceived. The Authorities have properly taken into
consideration the order passed by the Division Bench referred to
herein above and the Rules for granting remission in accordance
with the Rules.
6. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Checking your session…