Allowed

Satish Yadavrao Dhoke v. State of Mah. Thr. Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2023WP/758/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against rejection of remission application by State of Maharashtra. Court held that adverse opinion of referral Judge regarding gravity of offence does not bar remission under Government Circular. Ordered fresh judicial appraisal and remission consideration.

What did the court decide?

State directed to consider case for remission under Govt Circular dated 03/06/2017 after submitting case for fresh judicial appraisal within two weeks.

Satish Yadavrao Dhoke Vs State of Mah… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:16829-DB

¶2

1 915-J-WP-758-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER :Satish Yadavrao Dhoke,
(In Central PrisonAge : 40 years, Occp. Convicted
Nagpur)Offender (Prisoner No.C-7783)
R/o : Central Prison, Nagpur.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

RESPONDENTS :1. State of Maharashtra
 Through Ministry for Home,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Superintendent of Prison,
 Central Prison, Nagpur.

¶8

Shri R. K. Maheshwari, Advocate (Appointed) for petitioner.
Ms. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM:-VINAY JOSHI AND

¶10

M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : 04/12/2023.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶12

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶13

with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

2.The petitioner has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506-II, 376(2)(g) r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 4 r/w Section 25 of
the Indian Arms Act, 1959; Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act,

¶15

1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of

¶16

Organized Crime Act, 1999.

¶17

2 915-J-WP-758-23.doc

¶18

3.The petitioner is in jail since 23/02/2009. The
petitioner has applied for grant of remission under the
Government Circular dated 03/06/2017, however, due to adverse
opinion of the Sessions Judge, it has not been granted. While
challenging the adverse order, petitioner would submit that
learned Sessions Judge has unwantedly adverted to the words
“Gravity of the offence" which resulted into rejection of his
application. It is submitted that the Government Resolution does
not exclude the applicability of remission on account of gravity
and thus, the order is patently illegal.

¶19

4. The State resisted the petition by filing reply affidavit.

¶20

It is contended that since the referral Judge has given adverse
opinion, the authority has declined to grant benefit of the
Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017.

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two
decisions of this Court in the case ofCriminal Writ Petition
No.1414/2018 dated 01/02/2019 (Satish Dada Londhe Vrs. The
State of Maharashtraand in the case of Criminal Writ Petition
No.108/2019 dated 04/03/2019 (Nilesh s/o Sukhlal Karosiya Vrs.

¶22

The State of Maharashtra and another),wherein the same issue
fell for consideration. In that regard, the Court observed that,

¶23

3 915-J-WP-758-23.doc

¶24

besides six categories excluded from the applicability stated in the
Government Resolution, there would be no other fetter in granting
remission. The opinion of referral Judge only bears a reason about
the gravity of grievance and thus, it is not in accordance with the
Government Policy. The said reason is not in tune with the
Government Resolution, hence unsustainable in law. In view of
that, the petition must succeed. Hence, by allowing the petition,
we pass the following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

a]The State Government is directed to consider the
case of the petitioner for grant of remission in terms of
orders/policy contained in the Government Circular
dated 3rd June, 2017 as amended by the Government
Resolution dated 19th November, 2018 after submitting
the case for a fresh judicial appraisal.

¶27

b]The parties case shall be forwarded for judicial
appraisal within two weeks from the communication of
this order.

¶28

c]The judicial appraisal shall be forwarded to the
authority within two weeks from the receipt of
communication. The judicial appraisal shall be made in
the light of observations made in this Judgment.

¶29

d]The State shall take appropriate decision within a
period of one month from the date on which the
judicial appraisal is received.

¶30

4 915-J-WP-758-23.doc

¶31

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

7. The fees of learned counsel for petitioner (Appointed)

¶33

be quantified and paid, as per rules.

¶34

[M. W. CHANDWANI, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]

¶35

Choulwar

Satish Yadavrao Dhoke v. State of Mah. Thr. Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Yadavrao Dhoke v. State of Mah. Thr. Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another.

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

Mangala W/O Manish Karemore and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Kamptee Dist.Nagpur and Another

Rajdeep Singh S/O Satnam Singh Sohal Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Gittikhadan Dist.Nagpur and Another

Nikhil S/O Purshottam Bhajan and 4 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Ajni, Nagpur and Another

Suhas S/O Ramesh Kolhe and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Wadi, Nagpur Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and Another

Mr. Kashiram S/O Hariji Rewatkar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Department of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another

Ravi Dilip Khatri and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ministry for Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. and Others