Suresh S/O Harikishan Madkam vs State Of Mah, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 261 Bom

        wp-330-19.odt                                                       1/3


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY


                                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2019

            Suresh S/o Harikishan Madkam,
            Aged about 35 years,
            R/o Seoni, Madhya Pradesh.
            [Prisoner No.C-4771 in Central
            Prison, Amravati]                                       :   PETITIONER
                        ...VERSUS...
        1. State of Maharashtra,
           Through its Secretary, Home Department,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
        2. Inspector General (Prisons),
           Maharashtra State, Pune.
        3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
           Amravati.                                            :       RESPONDENTS
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Smt. Nandita Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                          CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE &
                                                  ANIL S.KILOR, J.

DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.)

By way of present writ petition filed under Articles 226

and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a prisoner,

undergoing sentence for life imprisonment, has questioned the

order dated 13th December, 2018 passed by the respondent no.1,

whereby the petitioner was categorised under clause 4(e) of the

guidelines dated 15th March, 2010, according to which he requires

to undergo 26 years of imprisonment.

wp-330-19.odt 2/3

2. We have heard Ms. Aarti Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. Nandita Tripathi, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. Ms. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner was wrongly categorised under category 4(e) of

the guidelines dated 15th March, 2010 whereas he ought to have

considered under category 9 which is provided for the offences

punishable under Sections 388 to 400 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor points

out that petitioner was rightly considered under the category 4(e)

whereunder he requires to undergo 26 years of imprisonment. It is

further submitted that category 9 is not applicable to the petitioner

and therefore, it is prayed that the present petition may be

dismissed.

5. To consider the case of the petitioner, we have gone

through Clause-4(e) of the guideline dated 15th March, 2010 and

Clause-9. The Clause-4(e) relates to commission of murder during

the dacoity and robberies. Whereas Clause-9 relates to extortion,

robbery, dacoity etc.

wp-330-19.odt 3/3

6. For Clause-4(e), the person has to undergo 26 years

imprisonment, whereas under Clause-9, prisoner has to undergo 14

years imprisonment.

7. The difference between Clause-4(e) and Clause-9 is

clear. If the murder is committed during dacoity and robbery in

that case, Clause-4(e) will apply, otherwise in the case of dacoity

and robbery Clause-9 will apply.

8. In the present matter, admittedly at the time of dacoity,

the petitioner has committed murder and therefore, the

respondents have rightly considered the case of the petitioner

under Clause-4(e) and not under Clause-9 of the guideline, dated

15th March, 2010.

9. Thus, we are of the considered view that the present

writ petition needs to be dismissed accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

        sknair