Bombay High Court
Gulab Kisanrao Deshmukh vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, Home ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
(1) 3crwp346.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.346/2023
Gulab Kisanrao Deshmukh (In Jail) .Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. R. Sharma, A.P.P. for respondents - State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2025
Heard.
2. Petitioner has questioned order dated 12.04.2023
passed by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been
categorized in category 6(c) of the guidelines of 2010.
According to the petitioner, he should have been categorized
under category 3(b) of the said guidelines.
3. Category 3(b) refers to murders arising out of land
disputes, family feuds, family prestige and superstition. For the
said category, period of imprisonment to be undergone
including remission is minimum 14 years and prisoner is
entitled for release after 22 years including remission.
4. As against, category 6 (c) refers to murder for serious
offences where a convict is awarded more than one life
sentences and the sentences should run concurrently. In such a
case, the convict is entitled for release after completing 30 years
of actual imprisonment including set off and remission.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The Trial Court imposed
individual life sentences for both the offences. Thus, according
(2) 3crwp346.23
to respondents, the petitioner has been rightly categorized
under category 6(c).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner can be categorized under 6(c) as also 3(b) because
the offence occurred out of the land dispute within family and a
finding to that effect is recorded in paragraph 11 of the
judgment. He further submits that the policy of releasing
prisoner being beneficial in nature, the category which favours
the petitioner should be considered.
7. We are not impressed with the submissions that the
petitioner could be categorized in both, category 3(b) and 6(c).
Both the categories are distinct. In the present case, though the
petitioner has been convicted for committing offence which
arises out of land dispute within family, the fact remains that he
has been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and
has been imposed life sentence for both the offences and further
the sentences are to run concurrently. The conditions of more
than one life sentence and further that the sentences should run
concurrently are not applicable to category 3(b). That being so,
category 6(c) can be said to be distinct from category 3(b). The
respondents have rightly categorized the petitioner in category
6(c). He is, therefore, not entitled for the benefit as claimed.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Siddheshwar S. Thombre,J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Kahale
