High Court Criminal Division Bench dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging his categorization for premature release. Court held Government Resolution of 15 March 2010 applies.
Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; categorization under category 4(e) remains.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 4-WP-678.2020.doc
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2020
Ramesh Rajanna Pandari ....Petitioner v/s. The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent
Mr. Sushil A. Inamdar, Appointed Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent- State.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 07 JULY 2022.
P.C. :
Heard the learned advocate appointed for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
4-WP-678.2020.doc
4 months and 29 days. The Petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in the Sessions Case No. 680 of 2003 under Section 452, 395 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed was dismissed. The reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the State wherein the observations made in the Judgment by the learned Sessions Judge, Sewree have been referred to and reproduced. The prosecution case therein is that the Petitioner with others had committed robbery from the house of the deceased. The evidence laid by the prosecution is incredible and the Petitioner was accordingly convicted. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the Petitioner is on record. In the judgment the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the finding that the deceased was an elderly lady female lying dead on the floor of her house, with her hands and legs were tied and the Petitioner along with the others had done so while committing a robbery. There is a specific finding to that effect in the judgment. The learned Sessions Judge has given negative opinion about the pre-mature release of the Petitioner.
1 2021 SCC 937
3 4-WP-678.2020.doc
However, this case arose from an appeal filed against the order of conviction. In that context the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made observations reducing the sentence. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the case at hand. Thirdly, it was sought to be contended that the co-accused have been given benefit of the pre-mature release. The learned APP pointed out that as regards the co-accused, their sentence was reduced from the life imprisonment in the appeal itself.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
JYOTIPRAKASH Digitally signed byJYOTI PRAKASH PAWARDate: 2022.07.14 PAWAR 12:40:23 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is correctly categorized under category 4(e) of the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010 for premature release.
Whether the Government Resolution of 15 March 2010 supersedes the one dated 11 April 2008 regarding the petitioner's categorization.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivalinga @ Shivalingayya v/s. State of KarnatakaDistinguished¶15
Shivalinga @ Shivalingayya v/s. State of Karnataka
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Rajanna Pandari
The State Of Maharashtra
Nitin Jamdar
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
