Ashutosh Gole (adv. Appointed)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 1360 OF 2008 KailasPetitioner Balkrishna Patil (Through Jail) Vs. TheRespondent State of Magistrate & Ors. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. PC :- 1.The petitioner has filed the petition, seeking his release after serving sentence of 14 years, as life convict. Earlier he had moved an application which was rejected by the respondents on 12th April, 2006. On the last occasion, we had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to file a reply, stating as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be released in terms of the policy framed in April 2008. The reply has not been filed. Further time was sought to file the reply. 2.In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his release in terms of the policy framed in April 2008 and pass the speaking order within two weeks from today. 3.After passing of any such order, pursuant to above direction, such order be placed before us. S.O. to 20th August, 2008. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]

Order - Status 11: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 l -1- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda l of Coram, appearances, Court's l Orders or directions and l Registrar's orders. l Court's or Judges' Order i -i- - Mrs. P.H.Kantharia A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: October 8, 2008. P.C. Mr. Ashutosh Gole is hereby appointed as an advocate to conduct the petition on behalf of the accused who is in jail. Office is directed to furnish copy of the petition to the appointed advocate. S.O. to 14th October 2008. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 Kailas..Petitioner Balkrishna Patil V/s The..Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1.Heard. 2.Rule. Rule returnable immediately with the consent of the parties. 3.The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release from the jail in view of the provisions of Section 432, 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, remitting the entire portion of the sentence for his premature release under 14 years rule. The petitioner is in jail for a period as follows:- (a)Under trial period two years, 6 months, 20 days. (b)Actual sentence under gone 13 years, 7 months, 15 months. (c)Ordinary remissions and other remissions including State remissions 6 years, 1 month, 29 days. Total period with remissions is 22 years, 4 months, 4 days. 4.This was the position on the date when the return was filed by the State on 21st October, 2008. At that time the petitioner was classified under category 3(b) of the guide-lines dated 11/5/1992. But with new guide-lines introduced on 11th April 2008, this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines. The respondents accordingly considered the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines and passed an order dated 26th August, 2008 classifying him under category 4(c) of Annexure-1 and directed that he should be released after completion of the 24 years with remission subject to 14 years of actual imprisonment. 5.It is admitted position that the petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years. The only question which requires to be considered is as to how the petitioner is to be categorised and after completion of how many years with remission the petitioner is to be released. 6.Under new guide-lines of 2008 the petitioner has been categorised in category 4 viz. "for other reasons" and in sub-category, he has been categorised in 4(c) viz. "crime committed (a) above but with the premeditation or by gang or by a person having criminal history" and the punishment is shown to be 24 years in the said Annexure-1. What is important to be taken into consideration is that the classification of the accused under category 4 is basically incorrect, because from the final noting which have been prepared by the State, it appears that the deceased Ramesh was involved in criminal cases and as against him there were several offences registered and chapter cases were also filed. 7.From the facts of the case it transpires that some persons from the Mumbai desired to purchase agricultural property at Madhi and it is alleged that in order to see that those transaction are cleared, the deceased Ramesh was indulging in gundagiri and therefore the accused persons have come together and have committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the act of murder has taken place as a result of land dispute. When the murder is committed in relation to land dispute, the same has been categorised in category 3 viz " murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition". Thus the categorisation by the respondents into category 4 is not just and proper. 8.The offence committed by the accused thus falls in category 3 as stated above. Since many persons have come together and have indulged in the said murder we further find the offence falls in sub-category (b) viz. "the crime committed as above with premeditation either individual or by gang". Therefore, assuming that the crime has been committed with premeditation still offence will fall under category 3(b) and not category 4(c) and thus we find that the order which has been passed by the respondents categorising the petitioner into category 4(c) by order dated 26th August, 2008 is not just and proper and we set aside the said order. 9It is also equally admitted position that with the remission the petitioner has completed more than 22 years imprisonment. Both the conditions are therefore satisfied i.e the petitioner has undergone actual punishment for 14 years and he has undergone 22 years with all remissions at his credit. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released from the jail. 10.We therefore direct the respondents that giving benefit of sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner being classified into category 3(b),of the guide-lines dated 11-04-2008, he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 11.Rule is made absolute in terms above and the petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)