Allowed

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2016WP/1940/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted of murder sought open prison transfer. Court held prior category placement as gangster incorrect. Ruled petitioner falls under Category 4(c) of 2010 Guidelines for trade union murder cases, benefiting from 26-year term, and directed transfer to open prison.

What did the court decide?

Quantum has quashed the impugned order placing petitioner in Category 5(b) or 6(a) and directed authorities to send him to open prison.

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4. cri wp 1940-14.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1940 OF 2014

¶5

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

By judgment and order dated 25.7.2000 passed by the

¶17

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 526 of 1996, the petitioner was convicted

¶18

under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 144 and 148 of IPC and

¶19

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 6

¶20

4. cri wp 1940-14.doc

¶21

27 of the Arms Act and 135 r/w 37(1)(a) of Bombay Police

¶22

Act. For the offence under Sections 302 as well as under Section 307 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. The petitioner is now seeking premature release.

¶23

After a convict completes 12 years of actual

¶24

imprisonment, his case is referred to the Home Department for categorization under the Guidelines relating to premature release of prisoners. By a communication dated 28.2.2012, the petitioner was informed that he has been placed in Category 5(b) of 1992 Guidelines and in Category 6(a) of 2010 Guidelines. Both these Guidelines provided that the petitioner would be released from prison after completing 28 years of imprisonment including remission provided that the petitioner has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment.

¶25

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 6

¶26

4. cri wp 1940-14.doc

¶27

Being aggrieved by the communication dated

¶28

28.2.2012, the petitioner preferred the present petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been placed in Category 5(b) or 6(a) as it is the case of murder being committed by a gangster or a contract killer. It was pointed out that in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3476 of 2010 which was preferred by the petitioner in relation to the prayer that he

¶29

be sent to open prison, it was observed that there was no material to show that the petitioner was a gangster or a contract killer and the case was sent back for reconsideration. However, as the petitioner was not yet transfered to open prison, he again preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2011. This Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 24.12.2013. It was reflected in paragraph 7

¶30

of the order as under:-

¶31

"7. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the findings recorded by the court below. Upon such examination, we find that there is nothing on record which would even remotely indicate that the petitioner had any alliance with any crime syndicate or that the petitioner was a contract killer who had committed murder for money. We thus find that there has been absolutely no reconsideration of the case of the petitioner

¶32

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 6

¶33

4. cri wp 1940-14.doc

¶34

despite the judgment of this court dated 7.4.2011."............

¶35

........................

¶36

We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit "B" and direct the authorities to send the petitioner to open prison in accordance with law."

¶37

This Court, by order dated 22.6.2016 in the present petition, observed that this Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 3476 of 2010 and 1984 of 2011 has considered the very issue whether the petitioner was a gangster, contract killer or affiliated to any gang and this Court held the said issue in the negative in both these Writ Petitions. In this view of the matter, this Court observed in the said order that placing of

¶38

the petitioner in Category 5(b) or 6(a) would be incorrect.

¶39

Thereafter, in view of the order dated 22.6.2016 passed

¶40

in the present Writ Petition, the Government reconsidered the issue and by order dated 11.8.2016 categorized the petitioner as falling in Category 6(c) of 2010 Guidelines. Category 6 covers murder for serious offences. Category 6(c)

¶41

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 6

¶42

4. cri wp 1940-14.doc

¶43

states that convict awarded more than one life sentence and

¶44

life sentences are running concurrently shall be released after having undergone 30 years of imprisonment including remission. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Sections 302 and again life imprisonment under Section 307

¶45

of IPC and both the sentences are running concurrently, it

¶46

was held that the case of the petitioner would be covered by Category 6(c) of Guidelines of 2010.

¶47

Dr. Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶48

pointed out that the 2010 Guidelines which came into effect on 15.3.2010 clearly state at the end of paragraph 1 that these Guidelines will be applicable to prisoners who are convicted on or after the date of issue of this Government Resolution. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted by judgment and order dated 25.7.2000, hence, the Guidelines of 15.3.2010 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner.

¶49

The present case is admittedly a case arising out

¶50

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 6

¶51

4. cri wp 1940-14.doc

¶52

of trade union activities. 3(c) of the Guidelines 1992 covers

¶53

murders resulting from trade union activities and business rivalry. The convicts falling under this category shall be released on completing 26 years of actual imprisonment including remission. However, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdish¹ has observed that a convict should be given benefit of whichever policy is in his favour. As far as the 2010 Guidelines are concerned, Category 4(c) deals with murder resulting from trade union activities and business rivalry. The petitioner would fall under this Category. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish (supra), we are of the opinion that the petitioner has to be given the benefit of Category 4(c) of 2010 Guidelines. The concerned Authorities to take a decision in this regard as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶55

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶56

1 (2010) 4 SCC 216

¶57

jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 6

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismail Yusuf Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Yusuf Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aazar Azim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Devnarayan Singh @ Papa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakaesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane Vs the Superintendent and Ors.

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra