Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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