Sandip Sahadev Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5281 Bom

                                                                           151.wp.2240.21.doc

S.S.Kilaje             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2240 OF 2021

             Sandip Sahadev Kamble                                 .. Petitioner
                        Versus
             State of Maharashtra and Anr.                         .. Respondents
                                       ....................
              Mr. D.G.Khamkar for the Petitioner
              Ms. S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State
                                         ...................

                                            CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
                                                    MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
                                            DATE      : JUNE 10, 2022.

             ORDER ( PER : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.):

1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:-

"a. that this Honourable Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order Exh. Dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Home department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

b. By an appropriate Writ, Order or direction of this Honourable Court declare that the case of petitioner is covered by category 2(b) of guidelines of State dated 15 th March 2010."

2. The impugned order 11.11.2020 has been passed by the

Respondent No.1 State, interalia, concluding that the sentence to be

undergone by the Petitioner alongwith remission would be 26 years

and only thereafter the Petitioner would be entitled for release.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner asserts that the

Petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for commission of offence

under Section 302 in Yerwada jail; that he was arrested on 02.09.2004

1 of 4

151.wp.2240.21.doc

in Crime No. 274 of 2004 and convicted on 25.06.2008 and sentenced

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life; that the appeal against the

judgment of conviction came to be dismissed by this Court. He

submits that the Petitioner has completed more than 14 years of actual

imprisonment and more than 21 years of total imprisonment including

various remissions. He submits that the guidelines dated 11.05.1992

read with the guidelines dated 15.03.2010 in respect of premature

release of prisoner serving life sentence under Section 433-A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") are applied to the

Petitioner's case, then the Petitioner needs to be categorised on the

basis of the facts and circumstances of the offence committed by the

Petitioner under category 2(c) of the said guidelines and is required

to undergo total imprisonment of 22 years with various remissions.

Hence he submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

4. Ms. S.D.Shinde, learned APP while vehemently opposing the

submissions of the Petitioner has supported the impugned order

dated 11.11.2020 and contended that the submissions made by the

Petitioner are fallacious on the face of record. She has drawn our

attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated 09.07.2021 filed by Narayan

Shrikrishna Karad, Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Prison),

Mantralaya, Mumbai on behalf of the Respondent State to oppose the

challenge to the impugned order. She submits that the underlying

2 of 4

151.wp.2240.21.doc

principle behind application of the guidelines issued by the State for

premature release of a convicted prisoner is based upon the guidelines

and directions laid down by the Supreme Court in Criminal Writ

Appeal No. 566 of 2010 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish

reported in 2010 AIR SC 1690. She submits that the impugned order is

a detailed speaking order passed by the Respondent State after duly

considering the findings given by the learned Sessions Court in its

judgment dated 25.06.2008 convicting the Petitioner; she has referred

to the impugned order to state that the findings given in paragraph

No.9, 16 and 30 of the judgment by the trial court have been partially

reproduced in the impugned order and they reflect the gross manner

in which the offence was committed whereby there were multiple

injuries caused by a weapon leading to the death of the victim

(woman) and the chain of circumstances was complete. She submits

that, in view thereof and the reasons given in the impugned order,

there lies no fault in the passing of the said order and it deserves to be

upheld.

5. We have perused the impugned order carefully and we agree

with the reasons give in the said order. The offence committed by the

Petitioner for which he is convicted is relating to a crime against

woman wherein the crime is committed with exceptional violence and

brutality leading to the death of the victim. We have seen that as per

3 of 4

151.wp.2240.21.doc

guidelines dated 11.04.2008, the Petitioner was to be released

prematurely on completion of 28 years of imprisonment including

remissions; however, as per the revised guidelines dated 15.03.2010,

the Petitioner now stands categorized under 2(c) and is required to

undergo 26 years imprisonment including various remissions. This

categorization of the Petitioner under 2(c) is in consonance with the

brutality of the crime committed by the Petitioner in committing the

murder of the victim (woman) by giving multiple injuries with knife

on her person / body. In view thereof, we are of the considered

opinion that the Petitioner having committed the offence with

exceptional violence and brutality has been rightly categorised under

2(c) of the guidelines dated 15.03.2010. We find no fault with the

order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Home Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai on behalf of the Respondent No.1 State and the said order

does not require any interference.

6. In view of the above discussions and findings, the Writ Petition

stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

     [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]                               [S.S.SHINDE, J.]


              Digitally signed
     SONALI   by SONALI
              SATISH KILAJE
     SATISH   Date:
     KILAJE   2022.06.11
              16:35:30 +0530




                                                                           4 of 4