Gujarat High Court
Vimalbhai Maganbhai Ramani vs Secretary, Home Dept. State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 13899 of 2025
==========================================================
VIMALBHAI MAGANBHAI RAMANI
Versus
SECRETARY, HOME DEPT. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BHAVIN B THAKAR(9371) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w section 473, 474(e) of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 7.3.2025 passed by the respondent authority at Annexure A and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the petitioner by considering remission.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302, 120B, 201, 109 and 188 of the IPC r/w section 135 of the GP Act by the learned Fast Track Court No.2, Sessions Court, Rajkot vide order dated 14.9.2010, against which, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2011 before this Court, which was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2015. He would further submit that the petitioner preferred an application for remission after passing of long incarceration before the respondent authority. However, the respondent authority has Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for remission without applying mind and hence, it is arbitrary order in the eye of law. He would further submit that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment of nearly 15 years and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for remission, but the respondent authority decided the application adversely without giving any reason.
2.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner requests to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent authority and to release the petitioner by considering remission.
3. On the other hand, learned APP would submit that this Court cannot exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction over the order passed by the State Government nor to extend benefit of remission to the petitioner. He would further submit that reasoned order has been passed by the respondent authority i.e. Home Department after taking opinion from all concerns and therefore, looking to all aspects, the impugned order is not arbitrary.
3.1 Upon above submissions, learned APP requests to dismiss the petition.
4. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, worthy assistance can be made to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court (J.B. Pardiwala, J, as he then was) in case of Harishankar Gayaprasad Jaiswal Versus State Of Gujarat, 2018 AIJEL-HC 239908, wherein Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the Coordinate Bench of this Court has examined the scope of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is pari materia to the provisions of sections 473 and 474 of the BNSS vis-a-vis the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in the order of the State Government and to extend remission while looking at Articles 161 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Plethora of authorities were surveyed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and summarized the discussion as under:-
"78. Let me now summarise the aforesaid discussion:
[1] The imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code means "the imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict". To put it in other words, till the convict breathes his last.
[2] The grant of remission is a matter of policy and it is for the Executive Branch of the Government to decide as to when, to what extent and in what manner, remission is to be granted. [3] The policy decision may be based on so many factors, like the prevailing general law and order situation, the impact of remission on the social life and social security at the relevant time and the type of the prisoners to be covered by it. Further, if the reformative imprisonments are already underway in the prisons themselves, perhaps, the immediate release may not be desirable or beneficial and thus, remission may have to be turned down accordingly.
[4] It is not for the judiciary to enter into this arena. Indeed, where the judicial function ends by awarding conviction and imposing sentence, it is there that the executive function begins and it is then for the latter to consider the question of suspension, remission and commutation of sentences.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined [5] The Courts should not issue any direction in the matter of policy, which is purely within the executive domain of the Government. If the Government decides to categorise the prisoners for the grant of remission and the classification is rational and intelligible and it is not discriminate between the same class of prisoners, the Court is not competent to say that such classification should not be made or that the same yardstick of remission be made applicable to each class.
[6] The Executive Wing of the State in its discretion on consideration of the cry and aspiration of the society for imposition of the deterrent punishment on certain type of offenders may decline to grant the benefit of remission. For example, an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. is not only an offence against a singular individual, but against the collective as it offends the dignity of a woman and creates a terror trodden atmosphere in the society, because a rapist is a menace in the civilised society. Sometime, liberal delineation with a convict of this nature decreases the faith in the system and a feeling of insensitivity prevails. Offences for dowry death and cruel treatment for demand of dowry have their own social impact, as the said offences corrode the essential social fabric and slowly denude it of stability affecting the age of old established institutions.
[7] Remissions are granted under the special circumstances by the State and also with the object of reforming the prisoners, after ensuring that there is no possibility of repeating the offences.
[8] The right to be released seeking the benefit of remission is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but is a statutory right and flows from the Act and Rules framed in this behalf. By earning remissions, a life convict does not acquire a right to be released prematurely.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined But, if the Government has framed any rules or made a scheme for the early release of such convicts, then those rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution. [9] Considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses - supports the concept of executive power of clemency. If the clemency power is exercised and the sentence is remitted, it does not erase the fact that an individual was convicted of a crime. It merely gives an opportunity to the convict to reintegrate into the society.
[10] All the convicts cannot be classified as one homogeneous class. They can be classified on the basis of different considerations. Heinousness or gravity of the offence committed by a convict can be one of the basis for such classification.
[11] Ordinarily, when any application or representation is received from the convict as regards grant of remission, the authorities concerned should not keep it pending for an unduly long time. It is a matter of great concern to a prisoner as to when he will regain his freedom from jail specifically when the sentence imposed is a life imprisonment. Therefore, without keeping such applications pending for a long time, those should be taken up for consideration within a reasonable period of time and the outcome should be communicated to the prisoner.
[12] The order passed under Article 161 of the Constitution granting remission in favour of a convict undergoing life imprisonment can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by any person aggrieved, if such aggrieved person is able to show that the power had been exercised taking into account the extraneous consideration, not germane to the exercise of the power conferred, or in other words, that the order is a result of Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined mala fide exercise of power. However, it needs to be clarified that the exercise of power in this regard cannot be questioned on the ground of adequacy or inadequacy of the reasons, which resulted into the passing of the order. The court is not entitled to investigate the matter on merits, but can certainly go into the question whether the power given has been exercised mala fide or not.
[13] It is completely a different matter that a person aggrieved, say for example, kith and kin of the victim or deceased may fail to prove or make good his case that the power was exercised taking into account the extraneous consideration or had been exercised mala fide, but, to say that no such person has locus standi to challenge an order issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, will not be the correct position of law. Though, no legal right of any kith and kin of the victim or deceased could be said to have been infringed by the grant of remission, but, such person has certainly got a personal or modified right, as he would be the real person, who felt aggrieved because of the criminal acts done by the convict. [See: Godde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828)].
[14] The policy, which was prevailing on the date of conviction, shall be made applicable for the purpose of grant of remission."
5. It is settled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not entitled to investigate the matter on merits, but can certainly go into the question whether the power given has been exercised mala fide or not. In view of the aforesaid aspect, if we examine the impugned order passed by the State Government as to see that whether any extraneous Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13899/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined consideration has been considered by the State Government or whether the order in question is mala fide, it is found that the Police Commissioner, District Magistrate and Addl. Sessions Judge all were have come out with negative opinion. It was a case where the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC on the ground that the petitioner and her paramour eloped and thereafter, to show that he is expired person, has killed another person named Babu Rambhai Sallat by throttling his neck and then dead body was cremated by pouring kerosene upon it. Considering the gravity of offence and considering the relevant policy, the State Government did not find incumbent to extend the benefit of remission or premature release. I do not find any mala fide on the part of the State Government permitting the Court to interfere in a judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed at admission stage.
7. It is clarified that the aforesaid observations and findings are tentative and limited to decide present petition only and therefore, it would not come in the way of the petitioner to renew the request for remission before appropriate authority.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:28:34 IST 2025