1 3693.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3693 OF 2010 Hariba @ Haridas Khelba Gadekar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents ...... Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar h/f Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for Petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 15, 2011. P.C. 1. This Petition is received through jail. In substance, the relief claimed by the petitioner is to release him prematurely at the earliest. It is noticed that the petitioner’s case for premature release was considered by the Appropriate Authority. The order passed by the Desk Officer to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department dated 28th April, 2010 provides that the petitioner should be released on completion of 26 years of imprisonment including all remissions. 2. From the assertions made by the petitioner in the communication, two aspects would emerge for consideration. According to the petitioner, 2 3693.10 the death of his wife occurred due to the assault by the petitioner in a moment of anger and without premeditation. He asserts that he has no previous criminal history and committed the murder in individual capacity. Secondly, whether the Petitioner’s proposal is decided by applying the guidelines which are more favourable to the petitioner. 3. We have noticed from the order of the Appropriate Authority that the Sessions Court has found that the offence occurred due to premeditation as the petitioner suspected the character of his wife. The fact remains that the second aspect of the mater which also arise for our consideration will have to be considered. In that, the petitioner’s case for premature release has been considered by the Appropriate Authority on the basis of provisions contained in guidelines of 1978. Whereas, in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish reported 2010 (4) SCC 216, it has been held that the Authority is obliged to consider the case of the prisoner on the basis of guidelines which are more favourable to the prisoner. Obviously, the Appropriate Authority has not addressed itself to this aspect. Accordingly, as observed by us in Writ Petition No.3654/2010 in the case of Dattu Vasant Nagpure v. The State of Maharashtra decided on 10th January, 2011, we set-aside the impugned order dated 28th 3 3693.10 April, 2010 passed by the Desk Officer to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and instead relegate the petitioner before the said Authority for reconsideration of the proposal of premature release on its own merits in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in the above noted Judgment. All questions are left open to be decided afresh. The Appropriate Authority shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order as may be advised not later than six weeks from today. 4. Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner. 5. Copy of the order be forwarded to the petitioner, who is in jail, forthwith for information. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)