JUDGMENT V.K. Tahilramani, A.C.J. - Heard both sides. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is that his parole leave be extended by 60 days. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 27.2.2016. The said application was granted by order dated 4.5.2016 for a period of 30 days. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on 6.5.2016 for a period of 30 days. The petitioner preferred first application for extension of parole on 17.5.2016 seeking extension of parole for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole on 17.6.2016 seeking extension of parole for a further period of 30 days. Both the applications came to be rejected by order dated 14.9.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed. Meanwhile, the petitioner surrendered to the prison on 5.8.2016 that is after overstay of 60 days. 3. As there was overstay of 60 days, remission in the ratio of 1:4 was cut i.e for 60 days of overstay, remission of 240 days was cut. As stated earlier, the petitioner has now prayed that his parole leave should be extended by a period of 60 days. 4. Learned APP brought to our notice the fact that the petitioner had preferred Cri. Writ Petition No. 817 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The said petition came to be rejected by order dated 3.8.2017. Learned APP pointed out that in the said petition, the petitioner had prayed that the prison punishment imposed on him of cutting of remission for overstay of 60 days be set aside. The overstay of 60 days in Writ Petition No. 817 of 2017 is pertaining to the very same period that we are concerned with in the present case. The order dated 3.8.2017 is a detailed order. After considering all the facts in detail, the petition came to be rejected. This means that the prison punishment of cutting of remission on account of overstay for a period of 60 days came to be upheld by order dated 3.8.2017which means that there was no good ground made out to show that the overstay was on some good ground. In this view of the matter, now, it is not possible for us to consider the prayer for extension of parole, hence, Rule is discharged. 5. In this view of the matter, now, it is not possible for us to consider the prayer for extension of parole, hence, Rule is discharged. 5. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is lodged in Nasik Road Central Prison. Order accordingly.