Bombay High Court
Ajay Khuman Chichkhede vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:11783-DB
-1- 43.WP.813.2025.J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 813 OF 2025
PETITIONER : Shri Ajay S/o. Khuman Chichkhede,
Aged about 37 Years, Occupation : Nil
[Convict No.C-11833], at present in
Central Prison, Nagpur, District
Nagpur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Dy. Director General of Police, Prison &
Reformation, Maharashtra State,
Pune-1.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Tahsil and District
Nagpur.
4. Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison,
Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Raju L. Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, APP for the Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : 10th NOVEMBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
Issue Rule returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
-2- 43.WP.813.2025.J.odt
2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of the Government
Resolution dated 13th March, 2024, by which the State Government
has decided to extend the benefit of remission of a certain period to
the convicts in view of the Diamond Jubilee of Indian Independence.
3. The benefit has been refused because the petitioner was
not a convict but was an undertrial prisoner on 13 th March, 2024. He
has been ultimately convicted vide judgment and order dated
24th December, 2024 in MCOC Case Nos.11/2008 and 28/2021. The
conviction is for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 364 and
387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
"IPC"). The petitioner has been acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 364(A) and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He
has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 read
with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. He has been acquitted
of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951. He has been also acquitted of the offences punishable
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999.
4. That being so, the counsel for the petitioner submits that
the benefit of the Government Resolution cannot be denied merely
because the petitioner was not a convict on a particular date i.e.
13th March, 2024. He submits that it is nobody's case that the
petitioner is responsible for the delay in trial. Thus, according to him,
the petitioner is entitled for the benefit.
5. Learned APP submits that the Government Resolution is
meant for those who were convicts and were undergoing
-3- 43.WP.813.2025.J.odt
imprisonment on that date. According to him, there is nothing in the
Government Resolution that would enable the petitioner to get the
benefit of the Government Resolution, he being an undertrial prisoner
and not a convict at the relevant time.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chottu
Ratanlal Punekar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2008 ALL MR (Cri)
2219], where, in an identical situation, this Court held as under:
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that benefit of the said
State remission is not extended to him though he is
entitled for it. It was urged on behalf of the
respondent/State that State remission can be extended
only to those persons who were convicts on 15-8-1997 and
it cannot be extended to those who were not convicts on
that date. Since the petitioner was not a convict on 15-8-
1997 and was merely an undertrial, he is not entitled to
get benefit of the State remission. The logic, according to
the learned APP is that had the petitioner been acquitted,
there was no question of giving him benefit of the State
remission.
5. The logic in the submissions of learned APP is
difficult to accept. The fortuitous circumstance of one
Court deciding a comparatively new matter before 15-8-
1997 and the another Court deciding a very old matter
thereafter cannot be permitted to be utilized to distinguish
between convicts/prisoners for the purposes of extension
of said benefit. Section 432 of Cr.P.C. empowers the State
Government to pass appropriate orders and to remit
sentences. In view of Golden Jubilee of Indian
Independence, the decision dated 6-8-1997 has been
taken. The decision is made operative from 15-8-1997.
-4- 43.WP.813.2025.J.odt
Thus the above referred fortuitous circumstances is totally
irrelevant and if any classification is permitted on the basis
of such circumstance, it would be wholly arbitrary. For an
undertrial prisoner languishing in jail, after he is found
guilty and is sentenced, section 428 of Cr.P.C. permits set
off of the period spent by him as undertrial prisoner
against the period of sentence ultimately imposed. Thus
for all practical purposes after he is found guilty and
sentenced, he becomes convict and as such is covered by
the policy decision dated 6-8-1997 mentioned above. The
effort to contend that the period spent in jail as undertrial
prisoner is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the said
circular, is without any basis and in fact it violates the
spirit of said decision. An undertrial prisoner who is
ultimately acquitted is not a convict at all and hence he is
not entitled to benefit of remission."
7. As could be seen, the situation before the Division Bench
was identical. The petitioner therein was also an undertrial prisoner.
The Division Bench took note of the fact that it is not in the hands of a
person like the petitioner to get decision before a particular date. The
Division Bench had also taken cognizance of Section 428 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permits set off of the period spent
by the undertrial prisoners. Accordingly, the Court held that the
undertrial prisoner, who is ultimately convicted, will be covered by
the policy decision.
8. Similar is the status of the present petitioner. In view
thereof, and for the reasons stated in the case of Chottu Ratanlal
Punekar (supra), we are inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. We
accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled for benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 13th March, 2024, and direct the
respondents to extend the same to him.
-5- 43.WP.813.2025.J.odt
9. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL L PANSARE, J.)
Vijaykumar
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/11/2025 18:43:05
