Allowed

Mahesh Vasantrao Motaphale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2024WP/754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convict serving a ten-year sentence sought the special remission declared by Maharashtra under its Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 marking Dr. Ambedkar's birth anniversary. The District Judge's negative recommendation rested only on the severity of the rape offence. The court held gravity was not an exclusion criterion and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to grant petitioner benefit of remission in terms of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.

Mahesh Vasantrao Motaphale vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/3 31 WP-754-24-corrected.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2024

¶4

Mahesh Vasantrao Motaphale .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharshtra .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Priyanshu Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr.D.J. Haldankar, APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 02^nd JULY, 2024

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶9

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶10

2] The convict Mahesh Vasantrao Motaphale (Convicat No.11780, presently housed in Nashik Road Central Prison, has addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Court, which has resulted into registration of WP No.754/2024.

¶11

The Petitioner make a request to extend him the benefit of the special remission as declared by the Government of Maharashtra on the occasion of 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasahbe Ambedkar, while he is sentenced by the Sessions Court at Parbhani on 22.03.1999 and according to the Petitioner he is entitled to three months of special remission as he is convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

¶12

rajshree

¶13

2/3 31 WP-754-24-corrected.odt

¶14

3] The learned APP would place reliance upon the report of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 15.02.2023 and his negative opinion to extend the benefit to the Petitioner, in the wake of the gravity of the offence as he is found guilty of committing rape on the victim girl alongwith two other accused persons, and it is opined that since the offence being of serious nature, he do not deserve the benefit of remission.

¶15

4] When we turned to the policy decision of the State Government as contained in the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 issued by the Home Department, it is evident that to commensurate 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar being celebrated as “Samata Varsh” by the State Government, in exercise of power conferred under Section 432 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the prisoners categorized in the said resolution are held eligible for state remission in proportion to the sentence imposed from 14.04.2016.

¶16

The Government Resolution itself has carved out an exception in respect of the class of prisoners who are not entitled to avail the benefit of the same and this includes the category of the prisoners who are undergoing sentence under Section 106 to 110, Section 121 to 130, i.e. those who are undergoing the imprisonment for raising war against the State; the prisoners undergoing the sentence under the Central Act; under the Civil Procedures, the young boys in Observation Home and the Prisoners who are unauthorizedly remaining outside jail.

¶17

rajshree

¶18

3/3 31 WP-754-24-corrected.odt

¶19

But for the aforesaid exceptions, the category of prisoners who are prohibited from availing the benefit of the Government Resolution, there is no other category of prisoners, like those who have indulged themselves and are convicted for commission of brutal and heinous crime, Gravity and seriousness of offence is not the criteria intended by the State Government to be excluded from the benefit being extended.

¶20

In any case, when the opinion of the concerned District Judge is to be called for, it is only in form of the recommendation and does not in any case, create fetters on the power of the State Government to grant the benefit of its policy dated 03.06.2017.

¶21

Merely on the pretext that the District Judge, who, only on the ground of the severity of the offence has recommended not to extend the benefit, we do not find that the Petitioner shall be deprived of the benefit.

¶22

5] As a result, Petition is allowed, by issuing a direction to the Respondents, that he shall be granted the benefit of remission in terms of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.

¶23

Petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶25

Corrected as per Speaking to Minutes of Order dated 05.09.2024.

¶26

rajshree

Mahesh Vasantrao Motaphale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Vasantrao Motaphale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sangram Raghunath More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Dattatray Deshpande and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradip Dattatray Deshpande and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zaiba Hasan Taliya vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Manoj Changdev Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babu @ Sameer Gopal Gogavale vs the State of Maharashtra