1 15 wp.1118.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1118 OF 2010 Vasant Nansaheb Mandlik. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2010 Kailash Vishnu Vidhate. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... Respondents ----- Mr. D.G.Khamkar for the Petitioners. Ms. A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 11 th October, 2010. P.C. 1 The first relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 1118 of 2010 is to issue direction that the sentence imposed on the Petitioner be made concurrent with the previous sentence of life imprisonment. The Petitioner had applied for the same relief by way of Criminal Application No. 3280 of 2005, which came to be dismissed on 2 nd December, 2005. That order reads thus: 2 15 wp.1118.10 “P.C. 1. Learned A.P.P. states that the applicant did not file any appeal against the decisions of the Courts below. As the offence is a serious offence, the question of acceding to the request of the Applicant for direction that the sentence in two offences to run concurrently, cannot be accepted. Application is dismissed.” 2 This order would bind the Petitioner as it has been allowed to become final. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to entertain relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in Writ Petition No. 1118 of 2010. The second relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 1118 of 2010, is that the Respondents be directed to release the Petitioner from prison forthwith. The relief in Writ Petition No. 2013 of 2010 is of premature release of the Petitioner. In this context, it is noticed that the Petitioner has, as of now, completed sentence in relation to offence under Section 302 on 17 th September, 2009 and his sentence with regard to offence under Section 376 and 506 has commenced from 17 th September, 2009. As and when the Petitioner becomes eligible for consideration of premature release, his application can be considered by the appropriate authority on its own merits in accordance with law. 3 Both the petitions are dismissed on the above terms. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]