1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2765 OF 2011 Israr Ahmed Fateh Mohammed Ansari .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Mubin Solkar, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mrs. S.D.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 16th December, 2011. P.C.: 1. This letter petition is received through jail. The petitioner prays for direction against the Respondents to reconsider his proposal for premature release. 2. The authorities have already considered the petitioner’s case and by order dated 25.07.2011 have held that the petitioner’s case is covered by Category 1(d) of the Guidelines of 1992 which is equivalent to Category 2(c) of the Guidelines of 2010. In either case, the petitioner will have to undergo imprisonment and sentence for a period of 26 years including the remission. 3. The argument of the learned Amicus Curiae is that the said 2 finding is manifestly wrong. It is not supported by the decision of the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court which has convicted the petitioner, however, has opined that the accused picked up quarrel at around 02.00 a.m.on the date of incident and started beating his wife. He submits that even though the Sessions Court has found that the petitioner was responsible for confining the deceased in a room and pouring kerosene on her as also setting her on fire, however, all this had happened on the spur of moment and it is not a case of premeditation at all. 4. Even if we were to accept the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae that the incident happened on the spur of moment because of some quarrel between the couple at 02.00 a.m.in the night, but that finding of the Sessions Court cannot be construed to mean that the offence in question was not committed by the petitioner with premeditation. By the very nature of the offence, for which the petitioner has been convicted i.e.u/s.302, 304B and more particularly 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the offence appears to be on account of persistent conduct of the accused which resulted in causing mental cruelty to the wife. In this view of the matter in the fact situation of the present case, no fault can be found with 3 the conclusion reached by the authorities that the petitioner’s case is covered by clause 1(d) of Guidelines of 1992, i.e. committing offence with premeditation. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae pressed reliance on the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Vitthal Karat V/s.State in Criminal Appeal No.697 of 2006 decided on 30.04.2008. In our opinion, the said decision will be of no avail to the petitioner as the Court has found in that case that the crime was committed in a moment of anger and without premeditation. That finding cannot be recorded in favour of the petitioner in the present case. 6. Petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7. Court expresses a word of gratitude for the legal assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae. 8. Copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner who is in jail. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)