Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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