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 Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR 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.)