1 wp3318.09.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3318 OF 2009 Mr.Suresh R. Dhanepkar. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Ms.Sarojini Upadhyay, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 20, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that opinion recorded by the Appropriate Authority in categorising the Petitioner's case as covered by category 1(d) for the purpose of considering request for premature release is inappropriate. It is submitted that the basis on which the said guideline has been applied is completely erroneous. In that, there is no material to take the view that the murder of the deceased was caused with premeditation, as has been noticed by the Appropriate Authority. We are not impressed by this criticism. Going by the Judgment of the trial Court dated 30th July, 1996, we affirm the opinion noted by the Appropriate Authority in the impugned decision that the trial Court 2 wp3318.09.sxw has concluded that the Petitioner had murdered his wife with premeditation, as he was suspecting her fidelity. Once this opinion is affirmed, the categorisation of the Petitioner done under clause 1(d) is inevitable, as the same is attributable to the crime committed against aggrieved person with premeditation. 3. The Counsel for the Petitioner made fervent effort to persuade us that the case would be covered by clause 1(b) of the guidelines. This argument is fallacious. The clause 1(b) would apply to a crime which is committed by the "aggrieved person" with premeditation. That is not the case on hand. The present case is squarely covered by category 1(d), which deals with a crime committed against "aggrieved person" with premeditation. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned decision of the Appropriate Authority. The Petition is devoid of merits. The same is rejected. 4. Court expresses a word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the advocate appointed to espouse the cause of Petitioner. 5. Copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Petitioner, who is in jail. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)