Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"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