Mukesh S/O. Ramji Yadav (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 80 Bom

 Judgment                               (1)                             7.Cri.WP.542.2018.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.542/2018


          Mukesh s/o Ramji Yadav,
          (In Jail) Aged about 45 years,
          Convict No. C- 7063,
          Central Prison, Nagpur.                            .... PETITIONER

                   // VERSUS //

 1)       State of Maharashtra
          Through it's Secretary,
          Home Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai - 32.

 2)       Inspector General of Prisons,
          Pune, Maharashtra.

 3)       The Superintendent of prison,
          Central Prison, Nagpur.                            .... RESPONDENTS

      ____________________________________________________________
         Shri N. Samundre, Advocate for the petitioner.
         Shri N. R. Patil, APP for the respondents.
      ____________________________________________________________


                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 04/01/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Judgment (2) 7.Cri.WP.542.2018.odt

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by his categorization for the purpose

of pre-mature release under category 4(e) of the Government

Resolution dated 15th March 2010. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, the deceased was attacked and killed by the

petitioner alongwith his associates on account of a family dispute and

therefore proper category to be applied to the case of the petitioner

should have been 3(b) of the Government Resolution 15th March, 2010.

4. Category 3(b) of the said Government Resolution enables the

petitioner to seek his pre-mature release on actually undergoing

imprisonment of 22 years while category 4 (e) enables such a prisoner

to secure his release on actually completing his imprisonment for 26

years.

5. In the instant case, after going through the judgment of

conviction and sentence, we find that what was at stake was not any

family dispute but a primitive instinct of revenge. This is evident from

the narration of facts in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the 5 th

Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1996.

Judgment (3) 7.Cri.WP.542.2018.odt

Therefore, we are of the view that the categorization of the petitioner

under category 4(e) of 15th March 2010 Government Resolution would

be appropriate and it is also consistent with the categorization of the

petitioner made by the respondent authorities. There is thus no merit

in the petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Sarkate