Bombay High Court
Rangaro S/O Poona Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 4 December, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
wp 652.21 judg.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 652 /2021
Rangaro s/o Poona Jadhav,
C-5035, 60 years, detained in Central Prison Amravati,
District Amravati. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
through Chief Secretary of Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati. ...Respondents
______________________________________________________________
Ms Radha Mishra, Adv (appointed) for petitioner.
Mrs. N.P. Tripathi, APP for respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM: M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 04-12-2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the sides.
2. The petitioner Rangaro Jadhav, is a convict undergoing
sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder vide judgment
and order dated 18-11-1995 in Sessions Trial No.59/1993. In this
petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09-03-2021
passed by the respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, through
Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, whereby the
learned authority has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his
premature release. Learned Counsel Ms Radha Mishra appearing for
the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 has wrongly applied
the category 4(e) in the Notification/Guidelines dated 15-03-2010.
According to learned Counsel Ms Radha Mishra, clause 4(a) would be
applicable to the case of the petitioner.
3. On the contrary, Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, learned APP
appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted
that murder was committed by the petitioner with exceptional violence,
therefore category 4(e) would be applicable and the petitioner has to
undergo 26 years of the prescribed imprisonment.
4. We have considered the rival submissions.
5. At the outset, it is well settled, that the guidelines which
are more beneficial to the convict has to be considered for
determination of the issue of his pre-mature release. Concededly, as
per paragraph 12 of the affidavit in reply filed by the State, the
guidelines issued through Notification dated 15-03-2010 are more
beneficial for the petitioner. We have perused the above referred
judgment wherein the petitioner has been convicted. It appears that in
the crime he was the main accused, committed murder with an axe by
criminally trespassing the house of the deceased during night hours.
Having regard to the nature of accusations proved against the appellant
in the judgment, in our considered view, the case of the petitioner does
not fall in the category of exceptional violence for commission of
murder and the case of the petitioner falls in Category 4(b) i.e. murder
committed with premeditation, or a person having criminal history and
the sentence of imprisonment prescribed for this category is 22 years.
It is stated that till date the petitioner has undergone 23 years of
imprisonment. As he has already undergone 23 years of imprisonment
and as per the category 4(b) the prescribed imprisonment is 22 years,
the petitioner has made out a case for his premature release.
6. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned order passed
by the respondent no.1 is liable to be quashed and set aside. We,
accordingly, allow the petition and quash and set aside the order dated
09-03-2021 passed by respondent no.1.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
8. Fees of learned Counsel Ms Radha Mishra appointed for
the petitioner shall be quantified at Rs. 2000/-.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Deshmukh
Certificate
"Certify that this Judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/order".
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :06-12-2021
