Sanjay Abhimanyu Parode (C-5918) vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 1796 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1796 Bom
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2017

Bombay High Court

Sanjay Abhimanyu Parode (C-5918) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 April, 2017

Bench: S.S. Shinde

                                                                 cwp1639.16
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1639 OF 2016


 Sanjay s/o Abhimanyu Parode,
 Convict No.C/5918,
 Age-Major, Occu:Nil,
 R/o-In Jail, Central Prison,
 Aurangabad.
                                 ...PETITIONER 
        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through its Secretary,
    Home Department, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai-32,

 2) The Superintendent,
    Central Prison, Aurangabad.   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      ...
    Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil Advocate appointed for
    Petitioner.
    Mr. P.G. Borade, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.
    1 & 2.       
                      ...

               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                        K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 13TH APRIL,2017.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT : 18TH APRIL, 2017.

cwp1639.16

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties

2. By way of filing this Petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner has sought direction to the Respondents

to consider his case for premature release by

placing him in the Category No. 4 (b) of the

Guidelines issued by the Home Department,

Government of Maharashtra vide Resolution No.RLP-

1006/C.R.621/PRS-3 dated 15th March, 2010 and

instead of 26 years imprisonment, it may be

brought down to 22 years by placing the Petitioner

in Category 4(b) of the Guidelines dated 15th

March, 2010.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that Respondent No.1 issued the order on

cwp1639.16

28th January, 2016 on the proposal of premature

release of the Petitioner from jail and ordered

that on completing 26 years of imprisonment, the

Petitioner be released from jail. It is submitted

that the Respondent authority did not take into

consideration the exposition of law by the Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish1,

in as much as, the policy which is favourable to

the Petitioner has not been adopted. It is

submitted that at the most it can be held that the

Petitioner has committed murder with premeditation

and therefore he should have been placed in

Category 4(b) of the of the Guidelines dated 15th

March 2010. Therefore the learned counsel submits

that the Petition may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State invites our attention to

the affidavit in reply filed by one Bapurao Ramrao

More, working as Superintendent, Aurangabad

1 AIR 2010 S.C.1690

cwp1639.16

Central Prison, Aurangabad and submits that the

proposal of the Petitioner for premature release

is decided taking into consideration the

information provided by the Superintendent,

Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad through

Additional Director General of Police and

Inspector General of Prison and Correctional

Services, Maharashtra State, Pune. It is submitted

that the Petitioner has committed double murder.

The Petitioner committed murder of Ashok Deokaran

Katode by stabbing him on his neck with spear and

also committed murder of Rajesh Deokaran Katode by

stabbing him with a dangerous weapon called

"katta". He also injured Meerabai, wife of

Deokaran Katode when she tried to save her son's

life. Therefore, the offence committed by the

Petitioner was with exceptional violence and with

an intention to cause death of Ashok Katode and

his brother Rajesh Katode and also injured their

mother Meerabai Katode.

cwp1639.16

5. We have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, with their

able assistance perused the Judgment of the

Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial

No.247 of 1997 (The State of Maharashtra vs.

Sanjay s/o Abhimanyu Parode) and also the relevant

Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 and 15th March,

2010.

6. It is true that the Supreme Court in the

case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish (supra) in

Para 43 observed as under:-

" State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for pre-mature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of

cwp1639.16

remissions also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer" for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof."

7. We have carefully perused the Judgment of

the trial Court and in particular Para 19 thereof,

wherein it is observed that the accused is the

person who committed murders of deceased Ashok and

Rajesh by assaulting them and causing severe

injuries to them by spear and Katta, similarly, at

the same time, accused stabbed to witness

Meerabai. The accused had an intention to commit

murder of Meerabai also. Therefore, upon careful

perusal of the findings recorded by the trial

Court, which are confirmed by the High Court, it

is abundantly clear that two murders committed by