{1} CWP No.86/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.86 OF 2011 Nandlal Bajranglal Sainy PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.G.Shah, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State ....... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J. DATE : 8 th March 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. A communication sent by the petitioner, through jail, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and this Court had accordingly appointed Advocate Mr.N.G.Shah, to represent the petitioner in this petition, before us. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. {2} CWP No.86/2011 3. Limited grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that the petitioner ought to have been placed in category 1(c) instead of category 1(d). Category 1(c), of the guidelines issued by the Government for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, provides imprisonment up to 24 years where the crime is committed without premeditation while category 1 (d) of the said guidelines provides imprisonment for 26 years where the crime is committed with premeditation. 4. In order to resolve the tangle as to whether the case of the petitioner would fall in category 1(c) or 1(d), we had requested learned APP to provide copy of the judgment of the trial court in Sessions Case No.737/1995 dated 06.05.1997. 5. Learned APP has accordingly provided us with the copy of the said judgment. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court reveals that the deceased was wife of the petitioner and they had got married about 15 years prior to the incident. It also appears that the petitioner used to quarrel with the deceased and hence she was residing with her brother. After about 6 months, thereafter, the petitioner went to the house of brother of the deceased and had slept with the deceased in the inner room whereas the other members had slept in another room. In the morning, when the door of the inner room was knocked, the petitioner had opened the same and had informed that the {3} CWP No.86/2011 deceased was lying in the room, he was caught there only. In the medical examination it was revealed that the deceased had sustained 10 external injuries and the same were caused due to blow of an iron pestle, which was found inside the room. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the act of the petitioner does not cover to place him in category 1(d), as he had committed the said murder due to sudden provocation. The trial court has observed that the petitioner had taken the defence that murder of his wife was committed by somebody while he was in fast sleep. The trial court has specifically observed that the deceased had committed murder of his wife with premeditation. 7. In this light of the matter, therefore, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the Government placing the petitioner in category 1(d). 8. Consequently, present criminal writ petition, which is devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The Legal Services Authority to pay the fees of Mr.N.G.Shah, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner, as per rules. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] drp/A11/cwp86-11