1 wp2832.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2832 OF 2010 Surendrakumar R. Singh. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. D.G.Khamkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 6, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the Desk Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra categorizing the Petitioner as falling under category 2(b) of the guidelines of 1992 and on that basis directing premature release of the Petitioner on completion of 24 years of total imprisonment including of remission, subject to completion of actual imprisonment of 14 years. The grievance before us is that the Petitioner would be entitled for benefit of Government decision dated 14th April, 2008. That is on account of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & ors. 2 wp2832.10 V/s. Jagdish[(2010) 4 SCC 216], in particular, paragraph-54, where the Apex Court observes thus: “54. The State authority is under the obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails o the date of consideration of the case of a “life” for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.” 2. However, as the impugned order passed by the Appropriate Authority is anterior in point of time, where as the Petitioner now seeks to rely on the Government decision dated 14th August, 2008, we think it appropriate to dispose of the Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to make representation to the State Government, which may be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions are left open. Ordered accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)