1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2008 DIST.: MUMBAI Anwar Hussain Mohammed Shabbir Ansari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. K.S. Patil for the Petitioner Mr. P.S. Hingorani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 P.C.:- The petitioner has served a sentence of actual 21 years, and with remission, a total 26 years. He sought release prematurely in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government. His case was rejected, because the Government thought that his case fell under Category No. 1(e) of the Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992, and he had to suffer an imprisonment of 28 years. The 2 order was passed on 23rd October, 2007. 2. When this petition came to be heard in this Court, it was revealed that the Guidelines of 1992 were not in operation, and new Guidelines have been framed on 11th April, 2008. 3. In the counter-affidavit, though it has been stated by the respondents that the case of the petitioner will be re-considered under the fresh Guidelines, yet they have maintained, in paragraph 5, that the case of the petitioner falls in Category 2(c) of the Guidelines of 2008, and as such, he will have to undergo sentence of 26 years, including remissions. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Government will consider the case of the petitioner, and appropriate order will be passed very soon, inasmuch as the Government has already felt that the case of the petitioner fell under Category 2(c), which is manifest from their affidavit. Category 2(c) relates to crime against women and minors, where the crime is committed (a) with exceptional violence and/or (b) with brutality or death of a victim due to burns. 3 5. We have seen the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, and confirmed by the High Court in appeal. The Courts found that the victim was murdered by striking her head by some hard and blunt object; and after the murder was committed, the body was tried to be burnt. In any case, we do not find that this case falls within Category 1(e) of the 1992 Guidelines, because committing a murder by striking at the head with a hard object could not be categorised to be death caused due to exceptional violence. 6. For these reasons, we do not agree with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this case falls within Category 2(c) of the categorisation effected by the said order dated 11th April, 2008. Obviously, the petitioner's case should fall within some other category. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner afresh, keeping in view the observations made by us in this order, and pass an order in two weeks. 4 BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.