IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO.1989 OF 2008 Rajaram Barku Chavan ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Vijay Haremath & Rebecca Gonsalves, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S.Hingorani, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. The Petitioner contended that he was entitled to be released as he had served the sentence of twenty-three years as on 31st October, 2008. He was given life imprisonment for various offences and his contention was that under the policy framed by the Government, he was entitled to be released after twenty-two years. One of the grounds agitated in the Petition was that the person named Shri Umesh Rangnath Nikam who was also involved in the same offences was released after completion of twenty-two years. -2- 2. In earlier counter affidavit no reply was made to such an assertion. Therefore, the respondents were directed to file an additional counter affidavit in which they have accepted that Shri Umesh R. Nikam was released after twenty-two years of completion of sentence. It was also admitted that Shri Umesh R. Nikam had also undergone twenty-two years imprisonment with remission as the Petitioners has to go. However, the Inspector General of Prisons had recommended that Shri Umesh R. Nikam can be released under clause 3(a) of the policy after completion of twenty- two years of imprisonment. Government accepted it. It is also accepted in the Counter affidavit that releasing Shri Umesh Nikam after completion of twenty-two years was a mistake as he also fell under clause 5(a) of the policy and not under 3(a) of the Guidelines of 1992. Since the person was wrongly released that cannot be a precedent for ordering the release of the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s case has to be seen on its own. And, we feel that this case falls under clause 5(a )of the Policy framed on 11th May, 1992. Even though the new policy framed in April, 2008, the Petitioner would fall under the similar category. Therefore, there is no case for the Petitioner to be released only after completion of twenty-two years. -3- Since Shri Nikam had been released four years earlier to his entitlement for release, we have sought the names of the Officers who were responsible for his release. The names have been furnished, out of the six Officers, five have already retired and one has resigned. 3. In this view of the matter, we do not feel that this Court can do anything further in the matter. However, these issues are serious issues. Therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary to look into the matter and see that such things do not repeat and see the possibility of taking any action at this stage against the Officers who were responsible for Shri. Umesh R. Nikam’s early release. 4. The Petition is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.)