AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 directing the respondent no.1 to classify the case of the petitioner under Category 3(B) of the Government Guidelines dated 16.11.1978 and further direct to release the petitioner on completion of eighteen years of imprisonment with remission.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2009 and was tried by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. By judgment dated 13.01.2011, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302, 120B, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to suffer the life imprisonment. A criminal appeal no.237 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court and it came to be dismissed. She submitted that in view of Section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894 which empowers the State Government to make rules with regard to remission and consequently reducing of the sentence. By virtue of the aforesaid enabling clause, the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra has to frame the rules and in view of the said rules the petitioner is entitled for the relief of reducing his sentence by two years. She also invited our attention towards the Government Guidelines dated 16.11.1978, wherein the categorization of the prisoners is given. In view of the aforesaid Guidelines, Category 1(c) deals with murders without premeditation and Category 1(b) deals where murder is committed with pre-meditation and for both the categories, period of 18 years of imprisonment is provided. She submitted that the certificate issued on 08.08.2025 shows that the petitioner has undergone 14 Years 4 Months and 4 Days of imprisonment. Therefore, she submitted that by applying the rule of fourteen years, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced and he be released by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.2.
Shri V.A. Thakare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has strongly opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there are subsequent notifications issued by the State Government and the notification dated 11.04.2008 discloses various categories wherein murder arising out of land disputes, family feuds, family prestige and superstition are covered. He invited our attention to the impugned judgment and submitted that the murder involved in the instant case was committed by the petitioner alongwith other persons. Thus, it is a murder committed by premeditation and therefore the Authority has rightly categorized the petitioner and no interference is warranted with the impugned order.
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the Government Guidelines which are relied upon by both the learned counsel for the parties, it reveals involvement of the petitioner in committing the murder alongwith other persons. The facts of the case further show that after preparation of the said murder by forming unlawful assembly, the murder was committed. Therefore, the Authority has rightly considered that this is a murder committed after premeditation and therefore in view of the subsequent Government Guidelines dated 11.04.2008, the petitioner was rightly categorized.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana & Others Versus Raj Kumar @ Bittu [Criminal Appeal No.721 of 2021 alongwith connected matter] wherein the Punjab and Haryana State Government’s policy was involved and therefore this is not helpful to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in Sharafat Ali Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.439 of 2021] wherein the policy of Uttar Pradesh State Government was involved.
In view of above discussion, we find that there is no merit in the criminal writ petition and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.