A convict serving life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC lost his claim for premature release after the Bombay High Court upheld the removal of his name from the remission register due to an unexplained 111-day parole overstay. The judgment clarifies that procedural compliance in parole surrender is non-negotiable, and mere assertions of illness or pandemic-related hardship without documentary proof cannot override established prison rules.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sahebrao Sudam Divekar, was convicted in 2011 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2012. By 2025, he had served over 14 years in actual custody and claimed entitlement to remission under the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 15th March 2010. His claim was rejected after his name was removed from the remission register due to an overstay of 111 days following his parole period.
Procedural History
- 12 May 2020: Petitioner granted parole for 30 days.
- 8 May 2020: State issued circular extending parole due to COVID-19 pandemic.
- 3 June 2022: Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020 directed further 15-day extension for parolees.
- 23 May 2022: Petitioner applied for additional 30-day extension; rejected by Paithan Open Prison authorities.
- 26 June 2020: Petitioner claimed he attempted to surrender but was turned away due to lack of RT-PCR test.
- 13 September 2022: FIR registered under Section 224 IPC for escaping lawful custody.
- 21 September 2022: Petitioner surrendered.
- 13 March 2023: Authorities removed his name from remission register for three years (Sept 2023 - Aug 2026).
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the order removing him from the remission register; (2) computation of all entitled remission; and (3) direction for premature release.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether unexplained overstay of parole, without credible medical or official documentation, justifies the permanent exclusion from remission benefits under prison rules, and whether the State’s discretion in such matters is subject to judicial review.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the overstay was due to extraordinary pandemic conditions: (1) RT-PCR testing was unavailable at the time of surrender; (2) State circulars extended parole indefinitely; (3) Supreme Court directives supported relaxation of timelines; and (4) the petitioner attempted to surrender on 26 June 2020. He relied on State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Bhagwanrao Patil to argue that technical breaches should not override substantive justice.
For the Respondent
The State contended that: (1) the petitioner was explicitly informed of the 30-day surrender window after extended parole; (2) his application for further extension was formally rejected; (3) no medical certificate was produced to substantiate his claim of illness; and (4) Section 224 IPC was invoked precisely because he wilfully failed to comply with lawful custody conditions. The State relied on State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath to assert that remission is a privilege, not a right, and must be earned through disciplined conduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principle of proportionality and the duty of the prisoner to comply with parole conditions. It held that while pandemic-related disruptions were acknowledged, the petitioner’s failure to produce any documentary evidence - medical records, hospital visits, or official correspondence - rendered his explanation legally insufficient. The Court emphasized that remission is a statutory concession, not an automatic entitlement, and its withdrawal must be grounded in clear violation of prison rules.
"The petitioner has failed to place on record the medical certificate showing that he was ill for almost 111 days."
The Court distinguished State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Bhagwanrao Patil, noting that in that case, the overstay was due to administrative delays by prison authorities, whereas here, the petitioner was repeatedly notified and failed to act. The Court also affirmed that registration of an FIR under Section 224 IPC was a legitimate consequence of non-compliance and did not preclude the State from applying internal disciplinary measures like remission suspension.
The Court further noted that the three-year exclusion period was not permanent and would expire in August 2026, after which remission would be reconsidered. This temporal limitation demonstrated that the punishment was calibrated and not punitive in nature.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that remission eligibility may be suspended for a defined period upon unexplained parole overstay, provided the prisoner is given notice and opportunity to explain. The State’s action was upheld as lawful, proportionate, and procedurally sound.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence Is Mandatory for Parole Extensions
- Practitioners must advise clients to obtain and retain official communications, medical certificates, or hospital records when claiming inability to surrender.
- Oral assertions or vague claims of pandemic hardship will not suffice in judicial review.
Remission Suspension Is Not Permanent but Requires Clear Justification
- Authorities may suspend remission for breach of parole conditions, but must specify duration and criteria.
- Suspension must be tied to a rule or resolution, not arbitrary discretion.
FIR Registration Does Not Preclude Disciplinary Action on Remission
- An FIR under Section 224 IPC and removal from the remission register are distinct remedies.
- A criminal charge does not bar administrative consequences; both may proceed concurrently.
