Saturday, 25, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Amarshi S/O. Late Ramji Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8003 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8003 Bom
Judgement Date : 10 October, 2017

Bombay High Court
Amarshi S/O. Late Ramji Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                              (23) WP 42-17.doc

DDR

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 42 OF 2017
       Amarshi s/o. Late Ramji Rathod                                  ...Petitioner

             vs.
       The State of Maharashtra                                        ...Respondent

                                         ...........

Mr. Sushil Upadhyay i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P. for the State.

...........

                                 CORAM               :    SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI  & 
                                                          M.S.KARNIK, J.J.

                                 DATE               :     10th October, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-

Heard both sides. The petitioner is undergoing life

imprisonment for causing death of his wife by setting on her fire. The

prayer of the petitioner is that his case for premature release under

Section 433 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure be decided.

2. Learned APP on instructions states that the case of the

petitioner has been decided and the petitioners has been placed in

category 2(c) of the 2010 Guidelines which stipulates that the

(23) WP 42-17.doc

petitioner will be prematurely released from prison after he

completes 26 years of imprisonment with remission provided that he

completes 14 years of actual imprisonment.

3. In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner for

premature release has been decided by the government, no further

orders are necessary, hence Rule is discharged.

4. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioner to

challenge the said categorization if so advised.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter