1 wp3431.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 3431 of 2010 Vilas Shankar Karande ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents Mr. Arfan Sait – advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste – APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED :- DECEMBER 08, 2010. P.C. This Petition is filed through jail. It challenges the order passed by the Desk Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 3rd May, 2010 whereby the Petitioner has been categorized as falling under category no. 1 (d) of the Guidelines. According to the Petitioner, however, he should be considered as falling under category 1(a) which pertains to the convict is the aggrieved person and has no previous criminal history and committed murder in individual capacity in moment of anger and without 2 wp3431.10.sxw premeditation. To justify this stand, reliance is placed on Paragraph 45 of the Judgment of the Sessions Court which has plainly observed that the incident in question took place without any premeditation. Indeed, the Learned APP submits that the said observation of the trial Court is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner before us. 2. The fact remains that the Appropriate Authority has not considered the matter in the context of the legal position stated by our High Court in the case of Khandu Ganpat Sonawane v/s. State of Maharashtra decided on 23rd February, 2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 163/2010 and in the case of Afzalali Karimulla Ansari v/s. State of Maharashtra being Criminal Writ Petition No. 2048/2010 decided on September 1, 2010. Instead of examining the argument of the Petitioner which has been raised in this Petition, for the first time, which has been glossed over by the Appropriate Authority, we think it appropriate to set aside the impugned decision and instead relegate the Petitioner before the Appropriate Authority for reconsideration of the proposal regarding pre-mature release. It shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law afresh in the light of observations made by us hitherto. 3 wp3431.10.sxw 3. We hope and trust that the Appropriate Authority shall also keep in mind the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v/s. Jagdish reported in (2010) 4 SCC page 216 which takes the view that the Authroity has to consider the proposal of pre-mature release keeping in mind the guidelines which are more beneficial irrespective of the date on which the offence was committed. 4. We dispose of this Petition with direction to the Appropriate Authority to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for premature release as expeditiously as possible and preferably by end of February, 2011. 4. Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the Learned amicus curiae. 5. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner who is in jail forthwith for information. (A.P.BHANGALE, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)