Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

"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