Dismissed

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar, C.No. 4310, Open District Prison, Paithan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013WP/229/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filed by a death-row convict seeking release based on the sentence being 22 years instead of 26. Bench refused to interfere with State Government's categorization under 1992 guidelines due to political motivation and heinous nature of the crime involving a minor.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no release granted. Secretary directed to pay professionals fees.

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar, C.No. 4310… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 crwp 229 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.229 of 2013

¶4

Deepak s/o Sudhakar Waklekar. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. R.D. Sanap, Advocate, appointed for petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 13^th JUNE 2013

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

The petitioner prays for releasing him considering the sentence imposed upon the petitioner to be for a period of 22 years instead of 26 years.

¶13

The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shriramapur by judgment and order dated 16^th March 2000 in Sessions Case No.86 of 1998 for offences punishable under sections 302,307,436 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for offence punishable under section

¶14

2 crwp 229 of 2013

¶15

302 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred Criminal appeal No.38 of 2007 in the High Court against the said judgment which came to be dismissed by a judgment and order dated 2^nd December 2008.

¶16

The petitioner's case was referred by the jail authorities to the State Government. On the proposal relating to the petitioner the State Government by an order dated 29^th November 2012 categorized the petitioner's case under clause 4(b) of the guidelines framed by the Government vide letter dated 11^th May 1992 and clause 5(b) of Annexure I to Government Resolution dated 15^th March 2010.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the facts of the case it could be ascertained that murder was not committed out of political rivalry and political interest, or with premeditation.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that, the petitioner-accused was member and thereafter President of “Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Samiti” . The

¶19

petitioner wanted that the vegetable market from the area

¶20

3 crwp 229 of 2013

¶21

of Ashok Stambha should be shifted to Rangar Galli. The petitioner also made representations to the authorities for shifting the vegetable market to Rangar Galli market area. The complainant Ratnakar was residing jointly with his brother Kailas. Kailas was the President of the Municipal Council at the relevant time. The petitioner thought that Kailas was causing hindrance in the process of shifting vegetable market. Therefore, the petitioner entered the house of Kailas in night hours, poured kerosene on the persons of Kailas, his wife and daughter and set them on fire. All of them sustained burn injuries and daughter of Kailas succumbed to the injuries. The learned APP submits that the death of daughter of Kailas is arising out of political rivalry and political interest with premeditation.

¶22

We have perused the judgment of the trial Court placed before us, considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench at Principal Seat in Criminal

¶23

4 crwp 229 of 2013

¶24

Writ Petition No.323 of 2013 ( Machhindra Tayappa Hajare

¶25

Vs. State ) (Coram: A.S. Oka & A.P. Bhangale, JJ.) dated 4^th February 2013. We have perused the same.

¶26

After considering the case in its entirety we find that decision taken by the State treating the petitioner's case in category clause 4(b) of the guidelines of letter dated 11-5-1992 and category 5(b) of Annexure 1 to Government Resolution dated 15^th March 2010 need not be interfered with. For political reasons, the petitioner has committed a heinous crime wherein a minor child was killed. Considering the gravity of the offence and the background in which the offence came to be committed we are of the view that no interference is warranted in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub Committee is directed to make payment of professions fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner.

¶29

Sd/- Sd/- (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) l

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar, C.No. 4310, Open District Prison, Paithan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar, C.No. 4310, Open District Prison, Paithan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandbee Sherjang Pathan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Amirali Shaikh Nabi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mir Ahtesham Ali Mir Zafar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sachin Ganpat Badambe C.NO.4444 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd.Rafiq Abdul Khadar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another