Bombay High Court
Bhiva Janaji Chapte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 August, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:33709-DB
1/3 26 WP 625-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2024
Bhiva Janaji Chapte .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.Anush Shetty i/b Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the petitioner.
Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for the State.
Mr.B.M. Tadavi, Jailor, Grade II from Yerwada Central Prison,
Pune.
CORAM:BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,JJ.
DATED: 20th AUGUST, 2024
P.C:-
1 Petition is filed by the convict for the following
reliefs:-
"(a) Direct the respondent to categorize and release the
petitioner as per Category 2(d) under Annexure I of the 2010
Guidelines for his life sentence under Annexure II of the 2010
Guidelines for his life sentence u/s. 376 IPC.
(aa) Direct the respondent to categorise and release the
petitioner as per category 1(d) of the 1992 guidelines for life
sentence u/s. 302 IPC."
As far as prayer (aa) is concerned, this is inserted by
way of an amendment carried out on 29/7/2024 as per the
order passed by this Court.
Tilak
2/3 26 WP 625-24.doc
2 We have perused the order dated 14/8/2024 passed
by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, where the
petitioner is categorized under clause (1)(e) of the guidelines
relating to premature release dated 11/5/1992 and in category
2(d) in the guidelines dated 15/3/2010, both prescribing that
the convict shall undergo imprisonment of 28 years, including
remission subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual
imprisonment.
3 At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner is
desirous of raising a challenge to the order dated 14/8/2024,,
but we find this challenge to be completely unfounded, as in
the petition itself, the petitioner has requested for his
categorization in category 2(d) of Annexure I of 2010
guidelines and therefore, we fail to understand on what basis a
challenge would lie at this stage.
We have also perused the impugned judgment
which is passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.
457/2005, where the petitioner face the trial for offence
punishable u/s.376, 302, 201 of the IPC and we have noted
that the learned Sessions Judge, on appreciating the evidence
placed before me, has concluded that the prosecution has
proved it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of
the offences with which he is charged and accordingly, on being
convicted under Section 302 and 376 of the IPC, he is directed
to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine to be paid.
Tilak
3/3 26 WP 625-24.doc
4 In addition, he also stood convicted for offence
punishable u/s.201 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for
seven years, the substantive having been directed to run
concurrently.
Worth it to note that this judgment of conviction
and sentence is upheld by the High Court.
By applying the principle laid down by the Apex
Court in case of State of Haryana and ors vs. Jagdish, 1 and after
calling the necessary opinion from the concerned Court, the
Advisory Committee and the Addl. DIG, Prisons, and the
Maharashtra State, Pune, the State Government has categorised
him by the order dated 14/8/2024. Since we find the
categorization to be appropriate in the wake of the facts and
circumstances in which he stood convicted and was sentenced
to undergo Life Imprisonment. We do not find any merit in the
submission advanced by the learned counsel and do not permit
the challenge to be raised to the order categorizing him above.
With this direction, Writ Petition is disposed off.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
1 (2010) 4 SCC 216
Tilak
