1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2695 OF 2009 Bapurao Dattu Pawar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Arfan Sait for the Petitioner Mr. K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2009 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and with their consent, the petition is being disposed of at this sage. 2. The petitioner is undergoing life sentence, and contends that he was entitled to be released after completing 24 years of sentence with remission. The State has rejected his contention by order dated 28th August, 2009, which is the 2 subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The State places the petitioner’s case under Category (3)(c) of the Guidelines applicable in case of the petitioner for premature release. Category (3)(c) lays down that prisoners who have committed murder resulting from trade union activities and business rivalry would have to undergo minimum sentence of 26 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the trial Court does not at all say that the murder committed by the petitioner was result of any trade union activity or result of business rivalry. Therefore, he submits that his case falls under Category (3)(b), where the petitioner could be released after serving a sentence of 24 years. This category lays down: “where murder is committed in the course of quarrel with pre-meditation or by a gang”. We have seen the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the motive for committing murder was that the accused believed that the deceased was making complaints against the alleged illicit liquor business of the accused and for this purpose, some time back, there had been a quarrel. For avenging that quarrel, the accused 3 committed the murder. By no stretch of imagination such a case would fall under Category (3)(c). The case falls under Category (3)(b). 4. As such, this petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders, taking the case of the petitioner under Category (3)(b) of the Guidelines. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.