Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Devidas Shukla (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 19 July, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp367.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.367/2016
Santosh s/o Devidas Shukla,
(In Jail), Convict No. C-1650,
aged about 46 years, Central Prison,
Amravati. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Inspector General of Prisons,
Pune, Maharashtra.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. H. Samudre, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :-
JULY 19, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved
by order dated 25.02.2010 passed by respondent no.1 and for further
2 wp367.16.odt
directions to the respondents to consider his case under Category
2(b) of the revised guidelines dated 15.03.2010. The petitioner has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, 202
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated
17.12.1993. Thr petitioner's case was considered for categorization
in the year 2010 and the petitioner was put in category 1(d) of the
guidelines issued on 11.05.1992.
3.
Under the 1992 guidelines, category 1(d) provided for
category of the murder committed by the aggrieved person with
premeditation. The same provides for imprisonment to be undergone
including the remission for the period of 26 years. However, under
the guidelines of 15.03.2010, a separate category of 2(b) is carved
out which deals with the offence relating to women and minors. The
said category categorizes the crime committed against the women
and minors with premeditation. The same provides for the
imprisonment of 22 years.
4. As such, the question that arises for consideration is
whether the petitioner's case deserves to be considered as per the
1992 guidelines or the 2010 guidelines. The issue is no more res
3 wp367.16.odt
intergra. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
24.06.2013 in Criminal Writ Petition No.228/2013 held thus:
9) In any case, the Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana & Ors. cited supra has held that such a policy
which is more beneficial to the prisoners would apply in
case of remission. In that view of the matter we find that
since a special category is carved out under 2010
guidelines, the petitioner's case would have to be considered
under the said guidelines. We, therefore, find that if 2010
policy is applied in case of the petitioner, it will be more
beneficial and as such in view of the judgment of the Apex
court cited supra, the case of the petitioner will have to be
considered under 2010 guidelines.
5. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner's
case is required to be considered in category 2(b) of the Government
Resolution dated 15.03.2010. As such, as per the said category, the
petitioner would be entitled to be released after completion of 22
years of the imprisonment.
Undisputedly, from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
the respondents itself, it would reveal that the petitioner has
undergone an imprisonment for 23 years and 7 months.
4 wp367.16.odt
6. As such, we find that the petitioner has already undergone
maximum sentence as provided under category 2(b) of the
Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 and he is entitled to be
released.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
25.02.2010 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. It is
held that the petitioner's case is entitled to be considered from
category 2(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010. The
petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any
other crime.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(V. M. Deshpande) (B. R. Gavai)
kahale
5 wp367.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale. Uploaded On:19.07.2016
