Bombay High Court
Gokul Orilal Joshi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
931.cwp.950.24 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.950 of 2024
Shri Gokul Orilal Joshi
vs.
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and another
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. R.L. Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Nandita A.P.P. for the Respondents.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & M.M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2025.
The request is to modify the impugned order dated 29/08/2024
passed by respondent No.1 refusing to release the petitioner by granting the
benefit of premature release.
02. Having heard both sides and having gone through the record, it
appears that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal
Code, thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life vide
judgment dated 06/12/2004.
03. Respondent No.1 has noted that the petitioner was released on
parole and furlough on various occasions. It appears from the impugned
order that the petitioner was released on parole and furlough on as many as
eight occasions and in all such occasions, he has not surrendered himself on
due dates. On one occasion, he surrendered after a period of 1220 days. It
also appears from the order that total number of late days is 2720 days, and
accordingly, respondent No.1 has calculated the total period undergone by
the petitioner. It indicates that while he was under trial, he had spent 2
years, 1 month and 23 days. So far as actual imprisonment is concerned, he
has undergone 12 years, 7 months and 10 days. Thus, the total period of
actual imprisonment undergone is 14 years, 9 months and 3 days. The
authority has extended total remission of 3 months and 15 days and
accordingly, total period of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner is 15
years and 18 days.
04. The petitioner is entitled for early release i.e. release by
including the remission period after 24 years of imprisonment. As of now,
he has undergone imprisonment only for 15 years.
05. As such, the petitioner has been categorized under Clause 4(d)
of the Government Resolution dated 15/04/2010, which provides that
where a murder is committed by more than one person/group of persons,
the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission is 24 years
subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner,
however, claims that he should have been categorized under Clause 3(b),
which provides for murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family
prestige and superstition. Even if, we consider the said category, the period
of imprisonment to be undergone including remission is provided to be 22
years. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone only 15 years and,
therefore, he will be not entitled for early release.
06. At the stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to
place on record a judgment, which favours him.
07. Time, as sought for, is granted.
08. The learned Counsel is, however, put to notice that if the Court's
time is unnecessarily wasted, the petition will not only be dismissed, but will
be dismissed with costs.
09. Stand over to 4th September, 2025.
(M.M. Nerlikar, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/08/2025 19:30:37
