District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

"Bombay High Court Grants Relief to Convict, Quashes Order on Premature Release Guidelines"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Justice A.S. Gadkari, has quashed an order related to the premature release of a convict. The ruling stems from a petition filed by Salim Gulab Pathan, who sought to challenge the categorization under the "14 Year Rule" for prisoners serving life sentences.

The case centered around a tragic incident involving a quarrel between Salim Gulab Pathan and his wife, which resulted in her death by fire. The deceased's dying declaration pointed to her husband's involvement in the horrific incident.

In its judgment, the High Court emphasized the principle of applying guidelines beneficial to the convict:

"As held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish (supra), the guidelines beneficial to the convict are required to be applied."

The court further analyzed the relevant guidelines dated 1992 and 2010 and concluded that the categorization beneficial to Salim Gulab Pathan was under category 3(a) of the 1992 guidelines.

The key observation from the judgment that led to the quashing of the order was highlighted:

"Having regard to the above discussion, the impugned Order dated 29th June, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. We direct that the case of the Petitioner be placed under category 3(a) of the Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992."

This decision has implications for similar cases where the classification of prisoners under premature release guidelines is in question.

**The petitioner was represented by Mr. Amit A. Gharte, while Mr. Ajay Patil acted as the Advocate for the Respondent-State.**

The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that guidelines beneficial to the convict are applied, especially in cases involving life sentences. The High Court's decision ensures that Salim Gulab Pathan is reclassified under more favorable guidelines, potentially affecting the duration of his imprisonment.

Date of Decision: 12th October, 2023

Salim Gulab Pathan vs The State of Maharashtra                                 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Salim_Gulab_Pathan_vs_The_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_12_Oct_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News