Dismissed

Shabbir Shaikh Gafoor Shaikh @ Shabbir Shah Gafoor Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2024WP/1646/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Life convict sought quashing of order refusing premature release under the 2010 Guidelines' 14-year rule, claiming classification under clause 3(b). The court upheld his classification under Clause 4(d) (murder by more than one person) and held that 3697 days of furlough overstay meant he had not completed the requisite 24 years. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shabbir Shaikh Gafoor Shaikh @ Shabbir Shah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(28)WP-1646-2024.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1646 OF 2024

¶5

Shabbir Shaikh Gafoor Shaikh @ Shabbir Shah Gafoor Shah ] .. Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ] .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sushan Mhatre (Appointed), for the Petitioner. Ms.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 19^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1] The Petitioner-Convict having been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment in Sessions Case No.102/1996, has been categorized in Clause 4(d) of the Revised Guidelines dated 15.03.2010, for premature release under the “14 Year Rule” of the prisoners serving life sentence.

¶10

He has filed the present Writ Petition, seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 and seeking a direction to reconsider his case under 2010 Guidelines.

¶11

1/3

¶12

(28)WP-1646-2024.doc

¶13

2] Responding to the Petition, the Special Inspector General of Police (Prisons) Nashik Region, has filed an Affidavit, wherein, it is categorically stated that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Petitioner is confirmed by the High Court when the Appeal No.733/1988 lodged by him is dismissed on 19.04.1999. It is informed that the Petitioner had undergone actual imprisonment of 17 years, 6 months and 2 days and 18 years, 8 months and 15 days of imprisonment, including the remission till 31.05.2024.

¶14

The Affidavit has justified classification in category 4(d) of the 2010 Guidelines, which prescribe period of imprisonment to be undergone to be of 24 years including period of remission in case of “murder committed by more than one person/group of persons”.

¶15

3] The learned counsel for the Petitioner appointed through legal aid has made a feeble attempt to categorize him under clause 3(b), which prescribe period of imprisonment to be undergone as 22 years in case if the crime is committed with premeditation, either individually or by a gang.

¶16

4] We have perused the impugned Judgment, where no doubt there is reference to some previous enmity and the motive has also come on record, but since it is not established that the crime was committed

¶17

2/3

¶18

(28)WP-1646-2024.doc

¶19

with premeditation, by a gang, in our considered opinion, his categorization under Clause 4(d) is appropriate and justiciable.

¶20

5] The Affidavit before us has also set out that the Petitioner has absconded when he was released on furlough leave by a period of 10 years and 3 months and has surrendered late by a period of 10 years 3 months and 7 days i.e. he enjoyed an overstay of 3697 days.

¶21

Had it not been the case, the petitioner, may be, considering his remission, been entitled for his release, but now because of his overstay for a period of 3697 days, he is not entitled for his premature release, as he has not completed the sentence of life imprisonment of 24 years, his act being categorized in category in Clause 4(d) of the Policy of 2010.

¶22

Resultantly, finding no merit and substance in the Petition, the same is dismissed.

¶23

6] We would like to place on record appreciation for the learned counsel Mr. Sushan Mhatre, who has represented the Petitioner, on being appointed through legal aid. His remuneration shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today.

¶24

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J]

¶25

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

¶26

3/3

Shabbir Shaikh Gafoor Shaikh @ Shabbir Shah Gafoor Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shabbir Shaikh Gafoor Shaikh @ Shabbir Shah Gafoor Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Prashant Shivajirao Sanap vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Marketing and Textiles Dept. and Ors.

Ekta Rajesh Marwadi Kumbhar @Binnavat@Binavat vs Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Nihal Ravindra Kumbhar vs District Magistrate and Anr.

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and 4 Ors.

Tabrez @ Tabbu Darvesh Khan vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Leelendra Deju Shetty and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.