Dismissed¶29

Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad (C-5494) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026WP/1424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court (Sandipkumar C. More, J.) dismisses Cri.WP 1424/2025 filed by convict Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad (two life sentences, Ss. 302/364/363/342 IPC, two murders) against his Category 6(c) classification under GR No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010 (release after 30 years for multiple concurrent life sentences); court rejects plea for Category 3(a) (family-prestige murder, 20 years), upholds the State's order dated 09.07.2025, declines interference; appointed counsel's fees fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner cannot be placed in Category 3(a); Category 6(c), in which he has been placed, is certainly an appropriate category. ¶28

Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad (C-5494) vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, awarded two life sentences for two murders, was correctly categorized under Category 6(c) of Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010 (convict awarded more than one life sentence with sentences running concurrently - release after 30 years), or whether he ought to have been placed in Category 3(a) (murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition; offence committed in individual capacity and without premeditation - 20 years).

¶20

Court's answer

Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner cannot be placed in Category 3(a); Category 6(c), in which he has been placed, is certainly an appropriate category.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1, before passing the impugned order dated 09.07.2025, took into consideration every aspect and rightly placed the petitioner in Category 6(c) of Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010.

¶28

Key takeaways

No interference is required in the impugned order dated 09.07.2025.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench) - Premature release categorization. Petitioner, convicted under Sections 302, 364, 363 and 342 IPC and serving two life imprisonment sentences for two murders, challenged the order dated 09.07.2025 placing him under Category 6(c) of Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010 (convict awarded more than one life sentence with sentences running concurrently - release after 30 years), contending he should have been placed in Category 3(a) (murder involving family prestige; offence in individual capacity and without premeditation - 20 years). Held: considering the facts, the petitioner cannot be placed in Category 3(a); Category 6(c) is certainly an appropriate category; respondent No.1 considered every aspect before passing the order and rightly placed the petitioner in Category 6(c); no interference is required. Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; fees of appointed counsel quantified at Rs. 5,000/- payable by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶1

(1)

¶2

Cri.WP-1424.2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1424 OF 2025

¶5

Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad (C/5494) Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Ms. Sarita Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed). Mr. M.A. Aher, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

¶11

Reserved on : 30.01.2026 Pronounced on : 03.02.2026

¶12

Oral Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶14

finally with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P.

¶15

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad, convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 363 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, has taken an exception to the order dated 09.07.2025 to

¶16

the extent of his categorization under Category 6 (c) of Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3, dated 15.03.2010 whereby he is directed to be released after 30

¶17

(2)

¶18

Cri.WP-1424.2025.odt

¶19

years of imprisonment.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of placing the petitioner under Category 6 (c) is definitely erroneous. On the contrary, he should have been placed in Category 3(a) as the murder in the instant case was involving family prestige.

¶21

On the contrary, learned APP, by filing affidavit-inreply dated 09.12.2025, justified the order of respondent No.1 placing the petitioner under Category 6 (c). According to him, two life imprisonments have been awarded to the petitioner on account of committing murder of mother as well as minor family member.

¶22

It is significant to note that the petitioner is placed in Category 6 (c), which reads as under :

¶23

6		Murders For Other Reasons
	c	Convict awarded more than one life sentence	30
		and sentences running concurrently

¶24

On going through the judgment whereby the petitioner is convicted, it is clearly evident that there were two murders committed by the petitioner for which two life imprisonments have been imposed upon him. On the contrary, Category 3(a), under which the petitioner wants to place himself, is reproduced herein below.

¶25

(3)

¶26

Cri.WP-1424.2025.odt

¶27

	Murder arising out of Land dispute, family
	feuds, family prestige and superstition.
a	If the offence is committed in an individual	20
	capacity and without premeditation

¶28

In the aforesaid category, murder arising out of the land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition, is involved. However, considering the facts of the case, petitioner cannot be placed in this category and the present Category 6(c), wherein he is placed, certainly is an appropriate category. On going through the impugned order dated 09.07.2025, it is clearly evident that respondent No.1, before passing the order, has taken into consideration every aspect and rightly placed the petitioner in Category 6(c) of Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3, dated 15.03.2010. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶29

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. The fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent the cause of the petitioner is quantified to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶30

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) JUDGE

¶31

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE

¶32

VD_Dhirde

Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad (C-5494) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Ramchandra Bhabad (C-5494) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Sajid Abdul Latif Ansari vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Mehboob Alias Goru Shaikh Babu vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nishikant Dnyaneshwar Vishwe vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jayshri Ramrao Mudale and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sangita Digambar Lokhande vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Kisanrao Mudale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others