Dyneshwar S/O Bhaurao Domewale vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6630 Bom

                                                   934 cr.wp 186.22.odt
                                   1


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

         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.186 OF 2022


1. Shri Dyneshwar S/o Bhaurao Domewale,
Convict No.C/6202, Aged about 53
years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Sirsi,
Distt. Nagpur

(Presently in Central Prison,
Nagpur)


                                             ...       PETITIONER


                      ...VERSUS...

1. State of Maharashtra through Police
Through its Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.

2. The Superintendent of Central
Prison, Nagpur Central Jail,
Nagpur ...

                                   ...        RESPONDENTS


___________________________________________________
Shri R.L. Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
___________________________________________________

           CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 13/07/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: S.B. SHUKRE, J.) 934 cr.wp 186.22.odt

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has questioned the legality and

correctness or otherwise of the order dated 10/06/2021

whereby the petitioner is directed to be released on his

undergoing 26 years of imprisonment including remissions

granted.

3. The facts of the case show that murder that was

committed by the petitioner was with exceptional violence

and brutality. In such a case, ordinarily clause 4(e) of the

Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 is attracted. But

learned counsel for the petitioner has different opinion.

He states that case of prisoner like the petitioner is

covered under clause 4(a) of the said Government

Resolution and therefore, such prisoner is entitled to be

released on completion of 20 years of imprisonment. Smt.

N.R. Tripathi, learned APP for the respondents/State

disagrees and relies upon the observations made by 5 th

Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in the judgment 934 cr.wp 186.22.odt

dated 25.11.2003 which are reproduced in the impugned

order.

4. There is no dispute about the observations made

in paragraph 8 of the said judgment. They indicate that

the murder was committed by the petitioner with

exceptional violence and brutality. Therefore, we find

nothing wrong in the impugned order, which relies on

clause 4 (e) of the said Government Resolution.

5. The Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

costs.

Rule is discharged.

                                           JUDGE                                   JUDGE

    manisha




Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE


Signing Date:14.07.2022 17:31